Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

HUMBERSIDE BILL [Lords]

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970

Mr. Wigley: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he is satisfied with the extent to which the provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 are being carried out by local authorities in Wales.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): I believe that the local authorities in Wales seek conscientiously to discharge their obligations under this Act.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware that the figures returned by county council social services departments show a disablement level in Wales of between 1·8 per cent. and 2·4 per cent., which compares with between 4 per cent. and 5½ per cent. for England and Northern Ireland, according to the survey undertaken by Outset? As attendance and mobility allowance payments are about twice as high in Wales as elsewhere, will the Minister get Outset to do a similar survey to show the true figures in Wales?

Mr. Roberts: I shall consider the point, but the hon. Gentleman will realise that the number of disabled people registered with local authorities in Wales doubled between 1974 and March 1980.

Mr. Ioan Evans: In this International Year of Disabled People will the Government consider what they can do to help instead of merely leaving it to local authorities which are suffering massive financial cutbacks? Will the Minister consider the effect of the expenditure cuts on services and facilities for the disabled?

Mr. Roberts: The Government, together with local authorities and voluntary bodies, are doing a great deal in this International Year of Disabled People. I acknowledge that local authorities have difficult decisions to make, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that expenditure on social services has increased in real terms over the past two years.

Dr. Roger Thomas: Does the Minister realise that many local authority social services departments do not have sufficient finances or staff to bring their disabled registers up to date, and that in many areas there is chronic under-funding for essential field work to discover the needs of new clients?

Mr. Roberts: I am not aware of any local authority approaching the Welsh Office requesting additional funds to carry out registration.

Farm Land

Mr. Hooson: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he considers that the existing legislation governing tenancy of Welsh farmland is satisfactory; and whether he has any proposals for new legislation.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): As the House knows, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I have been in discussion with the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association, whose joint proposals are now being examined. We made it clear that if the Government are to bring forward new legislation it is desirable that it should be in a form which is acceptable to both sides of the House.

Mr. Hooson: I recognise the need to secure the widest possible basis of support for legislation, but will my right hon. Friend press on with the matter with all possible speed, as the amount of farm land available for rent is declining every year as a result of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.

Mr. Edwards: I understand the importance of the matter, but it would be no service to the industry simply to introduce a measure that would not last and would perhaps be opposed or repealed at a later stage. That would not restore confidence. Therefore, it is, important to have the widest consultations to achieve widespread agreement about what is necessary.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Is the Secretary of State aware that if he accepts the NFU-CLA proposals in their present form it will give the landlord the right to throw out forthwith the wife and family of a deceased tenant farmer? Will he assure the House that he is not in favour of such a proposal?

Mr. Edwards: We are not committed to any part of the proposals. We made it absolutely clear to the CLA and to the NFU that we did not see the possibility of legislating in the coming Session of Parliament and that we wished to make use of the time available to reach agreement on matters of the sort that the hon. Gentleman raised.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: In view of the ill-advised and ill-informed comments of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Hooson) about the effects of the Act upon land available for rent, will the Secretary of State undertake a review of this measure and ensure that it is published before any legislative changes are made?

Mr. Edwards: We are undertaking widespread consultations. For example, I shall be meeting representatives of the Farmers Union of Wales and other bodies as well as the NFU. I have no doubt that all these points will be brought out and considered during the consultations.

Unemployment

Mr. Ioan Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many people were unemployed in Wales, Mid-Glamorgan and Aberdare in May 1979 and at the latest available date; and what action is proposed to deal with the problem.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: In May 1979 unemployment in Wales, Mid-Glamorgan and Aberdare totalled 83,024, 15,471 and 1,961 respectively. The figures in June 1981 were 150,352, 29,007 and 3,524. The Government will continue to pursue policies to encourage improved competitiveness while undertaking major programmes to improve the industrial infrastructure and reduce the impact of the recession on those who are unemployed, particularly the young unemployed.

Mr. Evans: Will the Secretary of State look again at the Select Committee report on employment opportunities in Wales in view of the fact that over a year ago it said that there was not a jobs gap but a jobs chasm? Is he aware that the chasm is widening month by month? Is he further aware that at that time the Select Committee warned that there would be serious social disorder if the Government did not address themselves to the problem of unemployment? When will the Government implement and update the proposals in that report?

Mr. Edwards: As the hon. Gentleman should be aware, we have undertaken by far the largest factory-building programme ever undertaken. More advance factories have been built in the last two years than in the entire previous four-year history of the Welsh Development Agency. What is more, we have succeeded in getting more space allocated in that period than has actually been constructed. That remarkable achievement indicates the determination with which we are tackling the problem.

Mr. Best: Will my right hon. Friend take every opportunity to inform the House that unemployment in Wales is now rising less sharply than in the past and that the proportion of unemployment in Wales, as part of the whole United Kingdom, has decreased?

Mr. Edwards: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, although that in no way mitigates the seriousness of the situation in Wales. My hon. Friend may have seen a report in the Financial Times or one of the Sunday papers in the last few days about the difficulty experienced by English authorities in filling their advance factories. We are currently far more successful than they are in finding new tenants for factories in Wales. I find that encouraging. I believe that if we can avoid the kind of social disturbances to which the hon. Gentleman referred we shall continue to be in that position.

Mr. Abse: Does the Secretary of State recall how, even in January this year, he mocked the Select Committee and me personally for having warned of the need for action to prevent serious social disorder in Wales? Has he the same high confidence now that it has happened in so many English cities? Does he not regard it as lamentable that, even though, fortunately, we have not had violence, our young people are sinking into apathy, refusing to get out of it and finding themselves disintegrating in a way which is no less serious an expression than that of an aggressive

attack? Will the Secretary of State cease to be a satrap to the Prime Minister, speak up for Wales in the Cabinet, and reverse these calamitous policies?

Mr. Edwards: That is the usual rubbish that we hear from the hon. Gentleman these days. It is untrue that young people in Wales are responding with apathy. It is also untrue that the Government have failed to respond. We responded to the situation in Wales with the largest programme of factory building ever attempted and a large increase in the special measures for the unemployed. The Welsh workers responded with startling improvements in productivity and competitiveness at Llanwern and Port Talbot and in plants throughout Wales. They know that that is the way to create jobs for the future. They also know that it would be fatal to follow the tragic example of some English cities and the kind of encouragement that I fear the hon. Gentleman's remarks imply.

Mr. Rowlands: That is not true.

Mr. Edwards: That is the way to maintain order and the high reputation of the Welsh work force.

Mr. Abse: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State has made a serious allegation, suggesting that I encouraged violence when the words that I used referred to preventing violence.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I heard the exchange. It was the Secretary of State's interpretation. It is not a point on which I can rule.

Mr. Hooson: Can my right hon. Friend recall any recent Parliament in which the inflationary policies advocated by the Labour Party actually reduced unemployment.

Mr. Edwards: Unemployment rose in every year that the Labour Government were in power. At that time we did not hear the kind of remarks that have just been made by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse). At that time he said:
It does not become the hon. Gentleman"—
referring to me—
constantly to lower the tone by pouring out his jeremiads and apparently revelling every time the figures come out so that he may make his miserable, puerile party point". —[Official Report, Welsh Grand Committee, 25 January 1978; c. 59.]
I throw those words back in the hon. Gentleman's face.

Mr. Alec Jones: Does the Secretary of State realise that the Opposition are tired of his and his right hon. and hon. Friends' complacent attitude? One would scarcely have thought that under this Government unemployment in Wales had risen by 70,000. Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that at the last Welsh Question Time he proudly boasted of three new factories being let in Wales which would create 210 jobs over three years? Is he aware that within three weeks of that announcement 2,578 redundancies were announced in Wales? Does he agree that my hon. Friends are right to draw attention to this potential danger for our society and people in Wales?

Mr. Edwards: They should be drawing attention to the huge danger for the future of Wales if the type of social disorder that has taken place in England were repeated in Wales. They should also be taking pleasure in the fact that such a large number of the advance factories that we have built have been occupied during a period of severe recession, and that major new companies are setting up in Wales.

Mr. Ioan Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Employment (West Glamorgan)

Mr. Coleman: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he proposes to take before the end of 1981 to increase employment in West Glamorgan.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: In addition to policies to reduce inflation and improve competitiveness we are pressing ahead to provide improved infrastructure in the area, including a major Welsh Development Agency factory building programme with 44 units totalling 291,000 sq ft either planned or under construction.

Mr. Coleman: Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that the answers that he has given today will convince the unemployed in West Glamorgan? How does he think that a rise of 88·5 per cent. in the level of unemployment in the Neath travel-to-work area will give the unemployed the confidence that they need? Will he press his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government to restore to the Neath travel-to-work area the special development status of which it was robbed by the Government only two years ago? Does he not realise the importance of that status to Neath and to West Glamorgan?

Mr. Edwards: What certainly will not restore the confidence of the unemployed is the lack of positive proposals by the Opposition in recent months to tackle a problem with which they failed to deal when in Government. In particular, I do not think that they will derive much encouragement from the Leader of the Opposition, who saw unemployment treble in his constituency when he was a Minister, when all that he can say is that we should spend money, without giving any indication of how it should be financed.

Mr. Anderson: Does the Secretary of State accept no responsibility for the increase in unemployment as a result of the Government's policies?

Mr. Edwards: Clearly, all Governments must accept responsibility for the economic conditions. I believe that we are now suffering the consequences not only of economic policies but of industrial practices and attitudes under successive Governments for a long time. There is no way in which we can restore competitiveness overnight when it has been lost over decades, often as a result of measures taken by Labour Governments.

Dr. Roger Thomas: Is the Secretary of State aware of the most undesirable effects that high unemployment in West Glamorgan has on the vast region of Wales to the west and north-west of the Swansea hinterland as far as his own constituency? Is he further aware that the people of that area are very worried about the special enterprise zone in West Glamorgan?

Mr. Edwards: Of course I am aware of these anxieties. I probably know the area as well as the hon. Gentleman does. I also know that the people in the Swansea valley widely welcome the new enterprise zone and are determined to see that it is given a real chance to succeed.

Nissan (Plant Location)

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what assistance has been given by his Department and the Welsh Development Agency to the Datsun company in its assessment of South Wales, and the Newport area in particular, for the location of its proposed plant.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I am satisfied that Nissan has been given a comprehensive and effective presentation on what Wales, including the Newport area, has to offer.

Mr. Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that he is not exactly earning himself the accolade of salesman of the year in his efforts to bring the Datsun project to Wales? Is he not rather giving the impression of selling Wales short? Would he not be better employed in illustrating the potential of Newport, with its motorway network, its docks and its efficient steelworks, and in urging a fourth river crossing to tie up with the building of the Severn link road?

Mr. Edwards: I have spent a great deal of time and effort in Japan and in this country in putting over all the advantages that the Welsh sites have to offer to the Nissan management. But it is a good idea on these occasions to be realistic. We have no inherent, built-in advantage. We have to make sure that we provide all the services that we possibly can to the company and give it all the information that it requires.
If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that Newport is self-evidently the chosen site—I do not know what Nissan will decide—I can assure him, as I have remarked to the press in North Wales, that many people on Deesicle will take a wholly different view.

Mr. Hooson: In view of the large existing Japanese investment in Wales, have my right hon. Friend and his officials ensured that the experience of Japanese companies already in Wales has been brought to the attention of the Nissan company?

Mr. Edwards: We have, of course, given very full presentations. I spent several hours in Japan discussing this matter with the vice-president of the company responsible for the investment. I was present at meetings of the Keidanren—the Japanese equivalent of the CBI—at which all these points were brought out. Incidentally, helpful and constructive remarks were made by John Griffiths, who was then chairman of the Wales TUC.

Male Unemployment (West Glamorgan)

Mr. Anderson: asked the Secretary of State for Wales to what extent male unemployment has risen in West Glamorgan from May 1979 in numerical and percentage terms.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Between May 1979 and June 1981 male unemployment increased by 9,341—an increase of 115·8 per cent.

Mr. Anderson: Will the right hon. Gentleman coolly reflect on his answer as showing not only the erosion of the manufacturing base of the county but the absurdity that, at a time when this base is being eroded and when male unemployment has increased by 115 per cent., all that the Government have done over that intervening period has been to downgrade several parts of West


Glamorgan for regional development purposes when the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs has recommended that Swansea, Neath and Aberdare should be upgraded?

Mr. Edwards: I understand the regional arguments very well, but if we are to make changes in the regional pattern we have to consider them in the context of the United Kingdom as a whole and make sure that changes elsewhere do not have damaging consequences for Wales. Although the position in West Wales is very serious—I do not in any way understate it—areas in England have deteriorated even more sharply. We must get the balance right so that we can deal with the worst problems and concentrate help where the greatest need falls.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: In view of the fact that the Bangor economists got their prediction right this year, what does the Secretary of State now say about their prediction of 200,000 unemployed in Wales at the beginning of next year?

Mr. Edwards: I have never commented on any of their predictions and I have always refused to make forecasts. But I do not place much value on an economic study that makes no mention of competitiveness, the performance of our competitors, the condition of industry or any of the realities that confront business people who are manufacturing and trying to sell goods.

Mr. Delwyn Williams: In the light of these figures and other figures that we have heard today, will my right hon. Friend commend the restraint and good sense of the young people of Wales as an example to the rest of the young people of the United Kingdom? Will he also commend the admirable way in which they have behaved during the recent riot-strewn days? [Interruption.] Does he agree that that is the result of their traditional Welsh way of life and upbringing and their appreciation of the traditional way of life in Wales?

Mr. Edwards: I am surprised that Labour Members should be murmuring at those remarks, with which I entirely agree. The steel workers in places such as Llanwern and Port Talbot, which I visited a week or two ago, have shown that they understand that the way to save jobs and stay in business is to be as competitive as any other plant in the world. They are giving a magnificent lead. I hope that no one in the House will do anything other than encourage the people of Wales to act responsibly. The reputation of our work force is our greatest single asset. That is why, during the recession, we are more successful in filling our factories than people in other parts of the United Kingdom. That is also why there is a sharp upturn in inquiries, visits and factory allocations.

Unemployment

Mr. Ray Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the total increase in the unemployment figures in Wales since May 1979.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Seasonally adjusted and excluding school leavers, unemployment increased by 64,700 to June 1981.

Mr. Powell: A tone of personal satisfaction appears to be coming from the Secretary of State, despite these appalling figures for Wales. Is he aware that last week alone, at Maesteg, in my constituency, Revlon—a multinational company with good industrial relations and

trade union agreements—announced the redundancy of 400 workers? Is he further aware that the Government are fanning the flames of violence in this country, deliberately creating industrial and social unrest—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman ask his question?

Mr. Powell: I got on with it.

Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman used words similar to those used by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) in 1978 when he said:
We are dealing with a matter which should be elevated beyond such obvious party interests. I am in a constituency—as most of us are—where blows are falling that are causing insecurity and anxiety to literally thousands of people. We all know that we are wrestling with a major problem."—[Official Report, Welsh Grand Committee, 25 January 1978; c. 59]
It ill becomes anyone in this House to make a cheap party attack of that kind.

Mr. Best: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the people of Wales would get more help and succour from a disinterested approach to this matter than from the party political barracking that is coming from the Labour Benches? Has he seen a report that appeared in the Financial Times of last Monday, which quotes the inward investment—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he is not allowed to quote from it.

Mr. Best: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the report in the Financial Times refers to the fact that the sense of desperation in Wales is now less than it was in the past? Does he not find it extraordinary that Labour Members scoff at the unemployment figures, in view of the fact that the trade union movement in Port Talbot and Llanwern has now turned those two plants into the most efficient steel-making plants in Europe?

Mr. Edwards: I agree with my hon. Friend. I have a great deal more respect than any labour members appear to have for the trade union leadership that I met at those plants and for the work that they are doing.

Mr. Abse: I am pleased that the Secretary of State has been reading my past speeches with care. Does he agree with the opinion, expressed over a wide spectrum, that we require a departure from the hard—line, partisan party politics of the Prime Minister with her single-minded attachment to monetarism and her determination to steer a course which is clearly bringing calamity upon Wales? Does he not have the capacity to elevate himself beyond the hard party line, of which he is becoming such a keen protagonist, so that we can get in Wales a new policy, new public works and new infrastructure and can do what France is doing? Why does the right hon. Gentleman lag behind?

Mr. Edwards: I do not know why I should be lectured by the hon. Gentleman about elevating beyond anything. We have the biggest programme of capital works, infrastructure improvement, road construction and hospital building ever undertaken in Wales by any Government. It is substantially more than that undertaken by the previous Labour Government when unemployment was rising sharply.

Mr. Wigley: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that it is part of Conservative strategy to shake people out of


existing jobs in manufacturing industry in the name of competitiveness but that there is no corresponding strategy for providing jobs elsewhere? Is it the Government's strategy that all those people should remain on the dole?

Mr. Edwards: I have just pointed out that we have a massive strategy of improving the infrastructure, and I have given the hon. Gentleman the number of successes to which the strategy is leading. It is remarkable that in the middle of the worst recession since the war we should have allocated 226 advance factories and nine bespoke factories to new companies and that firms such as Inmos and Mitel should be coming to Wales.
I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not see the significance of those expressions of confidence by new companies and does not understand the scale of the special measures that the Government are initiating to help the unemployed.

Mr. Alec Jones: Does the Secretary of State not appreciate that the successes that he describes are far outshone by the failures that we see throughout Wales? Does he not also realise that the figures that we have been given today from all parts of Wales demonstrate the failure of the Government? It is reasonable for the right hon. Gentleman to talk about new factories, but does he not realise that we are losing existing factories in Wales? The Under-Secretary recently visited ITT Creed in Pontypridd, on the Treforest industrial estate, and pointed to it as an example that we should be following. A fortnight ago that factory announced its closure, with the loss of 425 jobs. The right hon. Gentleman has a responsibility to help to preserve existing jobs as well as to create new ones.

Mr. Edwards: A great deal of help is given in new investment projects for the retention of existing jobs. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government had failed to solve the long-term problems, but I well recall the sort of excuses that he used to offer after he had been in Government for four years and faced precisely the same situation that we face. He has not come forward with a single positive proposal to rectify the situation, except a lunatic commitment to withdraw from the EEC and an even more lunatic commitment in connection with regional policy, which would destroy regional policy in Wales almost overnight.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Right hon. and hon. Members are beginning to make speeches instead of asking questions, and we are also getting long replies.

Manufacturing Industry (Expansion)

Mr. Rowlands: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many manufacturing firms in Wales have notified his Department of expansion plans in 1981; how many new jobs they will create; and how this number compares with the loss of manufacturing jobs in Wales in 1980.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I shall try a short reply this time, Mr. Speaker. Companies are under no obligation to notify my Department of their expansion plans, so that no such comparison is possible.

Mr. Rowlands: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since the last time he answered a question about Hoover and made some silly and insensitive remarks about

industrial relations there we face the prospect of losing another 500 jobs in that factory? We have done everything that the Prime Minister has asked for in terms of improvements and productivity. What else does the right hon. Gentleman want us to do? Even though we have not rioted in the streets we want to see the back of the right hon. Gentleman and the end of the Government who have brought us to our knees.

Mr. Edwards: I welcome the improvements that have taken place at the Hoover factory. They have been a considerable advance. To say that everything possible has been done is to overstate the position. I have spelt out a series of measures that the Government are taking to improve the situation, and there is no answer in the Opposition's suggestion that all that we have to do is to follow the policies that have failed before.

Mr. Hooson: What proportion of the new jobs that have come to Wales would disappear if the Labour Party succeeded in withdrawing Britain from the EEC?

Mr. Edwards: It is clear that the overseas investment that has come to Wales has come almost entirely because of our membership of the EEC. It would not stay here and new investment would not come if Labour's commitment were carried out.

Mr. Alec Jones: May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that even if firms are not obliged to notify the Government of their expansion plans it would be reasonable for him and his Department to try to get the figures from the firms concerned? Does he not realise that the index of industrial production in the manufacturing sector alone in Wales fell by 19½ per cent. last year, which is surely no sign of an upturn in the economy, despite what the right hon. Gentleman says? How long does he believe it will take us to get back to the 1979 level of manufacturing production in Wales?

Mr. Edwards: The facts that the number of inquiries and visits, the number of factory allocations and the number of applications for selective financial assistance are all going up sharply and that the chairmen of the development corporation and the Welsh Development Agency point to an upturn in investment interest are signs that we can take as encouraging. However, unlike my predecessor, who used to forecast month after month that the upturn was coming, I have never pretended that there were quick and short-term solutions to the problems.

M6 Motorway (Wrexham)

Mr. Tom Ellis: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for improving communications between the Wrexham area and the M6 motorway.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Michael Roberts): My right hon. Friend's responsibilities lie within Wales. Proposals for the improvement of the trunk route north from Wrexham to link with the Chester southerly bypass and the M56—M6 are at present the subject of a public local inquiry. To the south, plans for the Ruabon and Newbridge bypasses have already been the subject of a public inquiry, and my right hon. Friend is currently considering the inspector's report. Plans for a bypass at Chirk are being revised.

Mr. Ellis: Does the Under-Secretary agree that a prerequisite of enabling the Wrexham economy to return


to normal would be adequate communications, not only with the markets of Merseyside and Greater Manchester but with the great markets of the Midlands of England, and that the best way of doing that would be a direct link eastwards from Wrexham to the motorway? Will the hon. Gentleman consult his colleagues in other Departments to push forward such a programme, which would be beneficial not only to Wrexham but to large parts of North Wales?

Mr. Roberts: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's desire to establish good communications between his constituency and the M6. He will know that the road best suited to that—the A534—is a non-trunk road and is therefore the responsibility of the Clwyd and Cheshire county councils. The question of priority is for them to decide, but I shall certainly look carefully at what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Gwynedd County Council

Mr. Best: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the latest figures he has for the staffing levels at Gwynedd county council and compare them with those of one year ago.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: The latest return of the joint manpower watch shows that over the 12-month period March 1980 to March 1981 the number of full-time staff rose by 23, from 6,097 to 6,120, while the number of part-time employees fell by 118, from 3,725 to 3,607. These figures exclude those employed by the county council on law and order services and those employed as a result of the Government's special temporary employment programme.

Mr. Best: How do those figures compare with figures in other local authorities in Wales? Is my hon. Friend aware that the lion's share of local authority expenditure—about 70 per cent. —is devoted to manpower?

Mr. Roberts: I am certainly aware of the latter point made by my hon. Friend. All other county authorities in Wales have reduced their full-time staffing. Three have increased their part-time staff.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware that between 1974 and 1978 Gwynedd lost £4 million in rate support grant and had to cut its services to the bare minimum? Will he accept that the need now in Gwynedd is for increased expenditure on many services including the social services and on road construction?

Mr. Roberts: There has been an increase in social services staff in Wales over the year to which I have referred. I am aware of the position of Gwynedd. I do not wish to comment on the performance of individual authorities. Their circumstances vary widely. It is clear, however, that some authorities have been making efforts to reduce their staff while others have not. During the coming year all authorities will be expected to reduce their manpower.

Welsh Development Agency

Mr. D. E. Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Wales when he next plans to meet the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I meet the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency frequently.

Mr. Thomas: Will the right hon. Gentleman visit the agency's factory at Corwen and explain to the 60 unemployed work force how the former directors of the company that operated there, who owe the Welsh Development Agency public money, can set themselves up again in production, having destroyed the unit that was in operation at Corwen?

Mr. Edwards: The WDA has given the company and those who work there full details of the assistance that is available.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Will the Secretary of State ensure that the WDA has the resources to meet the circumstances that it faces? Although advance factories have been built, will the right hon. Gentleman examine the catalogue of firms that have closed in Wales in the last two years? Although the recession has an effect, why, when unemployment in Norway and Austria is at a level of 2 or 3 per cent., is it varying between 13 and 20 per cent. in Wales?

Mr. Edwards: We shall debate the affairs of the Welsh Development Agency in the Grand Committee on Wednesday. Its programme at the moment is by far the largest, in financial and other terms, ever undertaken.

Mr. Best: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the remarkable number of inquiries received by the WDA for factory lettings and its extremely good performance in letting factories demonstrate the interest of people in wanting to come to Wales to set up businesses and provide employment opportunities, notwithstanding the Jeremiah comments of Opposition Members?

Mr. Edwards: It has also done an extremely good job in presenting, the advantages of coming to Wales.

Mr. Anderson: However good a job the agency is doing, will the Secretary of State apologise to its chairman for asking him to undertake a task which is impossible because of the accumulative effect of Government policies, including regional development policy, the decline of IDCs and their policy on office location and dispersal of civil servants? Is he not asking the chairman to perform what is clearly an impossible task in Wales?

Mr. Edwards: The chairman is doing an extremely good job. He would not share the views expressed by the hon. Gentleman.

Fishing Industry

Mr. Geraint Howells: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the state of the Welsh fishing industry.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Nearly £350,000 has so far been paid to the Welsh fishing industry to assist full-time commercial fishermen over their current difficulties. The successful negotiation of a common fisheries policy remains a major objective of Government policy.

Mr. Howells: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his reply. I am sure that he is aware that unemployment in many Welsh coastal towns, particularly in Cardigan, is high. Will he consider spending a great deal of public


money to try to revitalise some of these ports on the Welsh coast to the benefit of the fishing industry and the public at large?

Mr. Edwards: Quite a large part of the financial help that the Government have given has gone to smaller coastal fishermen. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the DBRW's study into the possibilities. No doubt, there will be opportunities to consider the study further. Within the last week or so the Government have issued a consultation paper on inland and coastal fisheries in England and Wales which will give a further opportunity for people to express their views about ways of improving the position.

Mr. Best: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a large sum has recently been made available from the EEC to a seafood factory in Holyhead, in my constituency? Does he agree that this is yet another demonstration of the great benefit accruing to Wales through the United Kingdom being part of the EEC?

Mr. Edwards: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am glad to say that similar help was given to a similar seafood firm in my constituency.

Unemployment

Dr. Roger Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of the total unemployment figures published for mid-June 1981 were categorised as being long-term unemployed; and what specific measures are being taken to reduce the number of such people.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: In April 1981 22·2 per cent. of those registered as unemployed in Wales had been unemployed for over a year. The special programmes run by the Manpower Services Commission take account of this factor. Further measures are being considered, but the main answer must be to restore the health of the economy.

Dr. Thomas: Is the Minister aware of the close but distressing association between long-term unemployment and ill health affecting the whole of a family? By which methods does he hope to alleviate this nasty situation?

Mr. Edwards: I agree that there is some evidence that over a long period, usually some time after unemployment has initially developed, there is a correlation between ill health and high levels of unemployment which provides yet another reason for trying to tackle this problem. That is why the Government are currently considering further measures to help those who have been out of work for some time.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is now 3.15 pm, the time when questions to the House of Commons Commission are due to be answered. I have, however, been notified that the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), who was due to ask the question, is not able to be present. I shall therefore continue with Welsh Questions.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Secretary of State referred to other measures that are being considered. Does he intend to support his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment on the £700 million to £1,000 million package of help for young people, rumoured in the press at the weekend?

Mr. Edwards: I would not comment on detailed discussions that were taking place in Government about

the most sensible way of proceeding. A large number of proposals are being put forward. We shall consider which are the best of them.

Unemployment

Mr. Delwyn Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of those unemployed in Wales is under 25 years; and what are the comparable figures for the United Kingdom and for other European Economic Community countries.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: In April 1981 36·1 per cent. of those registered as unemployed in Wales were under 25 years of age. For the United Kingdom, the figure was 36·3 per cent. These figures lie in the mid range of the broadly comparable figures for European Community countries. With permission, I shall circulate the details in the Official Report.

Mr. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the figures show a more rosy picture on a European scale than we are led to believe is the position according to Opposition Members? Does he not feel that Britain is more than holding its own in the recession, and that Wales in particular, as revealed in today's exchanges, is coming out of the recession rather well?

Mr. Edwards: I do not take a great deal of consolation from the fact that other countries are also suffering from the recession. It is, however, true that in a number of leading European countries the percentage of unemployed under the age of 25 is higher than in this country.

Mr. Alec Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that unemployment of 36 per cent. among those under the age of 25 should not be described by anyone in the House as a "rosy picture"? Does he agree that the figure is the greatest condemnation of all the Government's policies? It denies these young people not only a job but any opportunity. Worst of all, it now denies them any hope. The best thing would be for the Secretary of State for Wales to go before he causes any further damage.

Mr. Edwards: Before the right hon. Gentleman gets too excited, I can inform him that the proportion of unemployed aged under 25 in April 1979, when, I think, he claimed some responsibility for what was happening under the then Labour Government, was 35 per cent. against the 36 per cent. today.

Mr. Rowlands: How many people?

Mr. Edwards: It ill becomes the right hon. Gentleman to indulge in such cant and hypocrisy.

Mr. Rowlands: How many?

Mr. Wigley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the hopelessness facing so many young people leaving school? Is he aware that there is nothing for them to work towards when there are no jobs available? Is he also aware that that gives a sense of despair and hopelessness, which is causing so much unrest at present? His answer is unacceptable to the young people of Wales.

Mr. Edwards: That is why we are taking vigorous measures to restore the health of the economy. That is why we have increased substantially the youth opportunities programme and why we are now considering further measures to this end. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it


both ways. He cannot complain about the scale of the problem and also complain when the Government put forward measures to deal with it.

Mr. Best: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that youth unemployment is perhaps the most serious form of unemployment in so far as it projects worrying trends for the future welfare of the nation? Will he continue to ensure that adequate resources are made available through the youth opportunities programme and also work with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment towards a more unified vocational training scheme for young people, so that they will be better suited for any variety of jobs that may appear in the future?

Mr. Edwards: I agree entirely with all that my hon. Friend said. In the next year or two we have to move towards the kind of unified training schemes of which my hon. Friend speaks, so that we can make the most effective use of the resources available to tackle the problem.

Following is the information:

Proportion of Total Unemployed Under 25 Years of Age April 1981 (Unless otherwise stated)


per cent.


France
39·5


Italy
49·7


Netherlands
42·1


Belgium
35·4


Luxembourg
48·4


Ireland
26·1


Denmark
31·0


Germany
*21·8


*Figures relate to March 1981.

Main Source: Eurostat "Unemployment" Bulletin.

The figures are not fully comparable owing to differences between the countries in statistical definitions and methods of compilation.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

National Heritage (Capital Taxation)

Mr. Faulds: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will ensure, following a Government decision in relation to the report of the Select Committee on the national heritage and capital taxation, that explanatory literature shall, without undue delay, be made available to the public by the Office of Arts and Libraries.

Mr. Best: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make the arrangements for private treaty sales more widely known to owners of works of art.

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Paul Channon): I intend to publish a note on these arrangements after the Government have replied to the Select Committee on Education's report.

Mr. Faulds: Whilst I am grateful for that positive reply, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can get his colleagues at the Treasury and the other Departments concerned to give as affirmative and as speedy a response as possible to the unanimous recommendations in the report of the Select Committee on the national heritage and capital taxation, in view especially of the accelerating economic dangers to the retention of that national heritage?

Mr. Channon: I take careful note of what the hon. Gentleman said. The Government hope to reply as soon as possible. However, it is a very complex matter. I note the widespread feelings of support for the report in all quarters of the House.

Mr. Faulds: Before the recess?

Mr. Best: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the very fine art collection of the late Charles Tunnicliffe, a former constituent of mine, was purchased recently for £400,000 by Ynys Mon council and that, because that sum was given tax-free, it is equivalent to about £1 million having been raised, and then capital transfer tax and capital gains tax having been paid? Will my right hon. Friend make sure that people are more aware of the provisions whereby local authorities can purchase specific items not just to keep them in this country but also to benefit those who receive the funds from the local authority and to ensure that people then have the opportunity to see these works of art?

Mr. Channon: I agree entirely with all that my hon. Friend says. The lessons of the Tunnicliffe case show that there is insufficient knowledge of the present arrangements. I congratulate my hon. Friend and the people of Anglesey on having, through their ingenuity, acquired works of art which I hope will give pleasure for a great many years.

Mr. Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend accept that we welcome his good will but that we want to know how soon "soon" is? This report was unanimous. It gives the Government a unique chance to make a very sensible and enlightened move. We have the full support of the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), the Opposition spokesman. Therefore, can we have a reply before the House rises for the Summer Recess?

Mr. Channon: The timing of the reply is not entirely a matter for me, but I shall make sure that my right hon. Friends know of my hon. Friend's concern for a speedy reply. However, I should prefer to get the reply right rather than have undue haste and get it wrong.

Mr. Faulds: May I reiterate what I said at the outset? The right hon. Gentleman must have got the message from the House that we all want to see action on that report. It cannot dangle about until the autumn. We want to know before the recess what is to happen.

Mr. Channon: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. I must again re-emphasise that I do not want to raise hopes that I cannot fulfil. The Government will reply as soon as they possibly can, but I am sure that it is important, when settling arrangements for the future, to get them right rather than rush just because the House is about to rise for the Summer Recess.

Woodhams, Barry (Visit)

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the recent visit to Woodhams, Barry, of representatives of the National Railway Museum, the Association of Railway Preservation Societies, and the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington.

Mr. Channon: I understand that a survey of the remaining locomotives at Barry yard was started on 29


June and that further examination will be necessary before it is completed. I am very glad that my hon. Friend was able to make this visit.

Mr. Adley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. As it has emerged from that visit and from earlier ones that the Manpower Services Commission is willing to make available assistance through the youth opportunities programme and the community enterprise programme for railway preservation purposes, will my right hon. Friend take an early opportunity to talk to his colleagues in the Department of Employment so that we can try to create a model plan for railway preservation purposes generally which can both help resolve the youth unemployment problem and assist the national heritage?

Mr. Channon: That is an extremely interesting and constructive idea, and I shall discuss it with my right hon. Friend.

National Theatre and Royal Opera House

Mr. Mellor: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how money was given by the Arts Council to support the National Theatre and the Royal Opera House in the last full year for which figures are available.

Mr. Channon: In 1980–81, the Royal Opera House received from the Arts Council a revenue grant of some £7·8 million; the National Theatre received some £5·2 million. The Royal Opera House also received a contribution of £350,000 towards its Development Appeal.

Mr. Mellor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Red Guards of the GLC are planning a cultural revolution which involves withdrawing the very substantial sums that the GLC devotes to these two institutions and spending them instead on polluting the streets of London with street theatres of assorted weirdos and Lefties? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be utterly unacceptable to the people of Britain as a whole that this should go on, that there is no scope, having regard to the size of the Arts Council's present grant to these institutions, for that to be increased further to cover the loss attributed to the withdrawal of the GLC's contribution, and that everything possible should be done by people of good will—I hope on both sides of the House—to persuade these Marxists to think again?

Mr. Channon: I understand that the GLC's arts and recreation committee has yet to consider its future policy, and I note what my hon. Friend says. It is very important that all of these national and regional centres of excellence should be preserved, and I am sure that that is the wish of the overwhelming number of people in London. I suspect that most right hon. and hon. Members are very pleased that the GLC has decided to continue the amount of money that it promised originally to the development appeal.

Mr. Freud: Is there not a very strong argument for separating the support of these two organisations and debiting the Department of Trade for them so that Arts Council grants can go towards the genuine theatre, even if it is performed by weirdos and Lefties, and help the community to have arts, rather than so large a proportion of the whole grant going to so small a sector, which is mainly done for the tourists, anyway?

Mr. Channon: I am not sure that I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. In my view it is very important, in a capital city of this size, to have these centres of excellence, and it is right that the Arts Council should support them. I do not believe that it would be quite right to debit the cost to the Department of Trade. There is common ground amongst most right hon. and hon. Members that we should continue supporting these national institutions and that transient political changes should not affect the basic structure of enterprises which inevitably have to plan for several years ahead.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Will the right hon. Gentleman take up again with the Arts Council the funding of D'Oyle Carte? He said that he would be examining this. The Arts Council has in its power the means of doing a great deal of good to people who are only in the initial stages of appreciating opera, especially in the North. Thais is a matter of great concern there.

Mr. Channon: I understand the right hon. Gentleman entirely. The Arts Council has considered this matter on a number of occasions. It felt that it was unable to support the D'Oyly Carte company, which has never had an Arts Council grant. I hope that the D'Oyly Carte appeal goes well and is successful. But what I cannot do, and what no Minister has ever done, is compel the Arts Council to make a grant when it thinks that it is wrong to do so.

Mr. Jessell: Has my right hon. Friend seen the result of some recent market research commissioned by London theatre managers which showed that theatre and opera in London basically were very popular but that the travel costs and travel inconvenience were greater deterrents to attendance than the price of tickets? Will he comment on that, and does he think that anything can be done about it?

Mr. Channon: I have seen that report, which is extremely interesting. I should like, as an initial move, to talk to those who commissioned it to see what action they would like me to take if there is anything that I can do to help.

Mr. Faulds: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is all-party support for the maintenance of such centres of excellence as Covent Garden Opera and the National Theatre and that although the Opposition welcome—I make that point clear—an extension of community arts and more expenditure on them, we intend to see that those national centres of excellence are maintained among the best in the world?

Mr. Channon: In that case, I think that we can say that we are on common ground, and that is a very happy position.

Mr. Blackburn: Will my right hon. Friend outline the assurance which I hope he is about to give on the future of the National Theatre, the Royal Opera House and, especially, the London Symphony Orchestra? I am sure that the entire House will wish to know the attitude of the Greater London Council so that there may be continuity and planning of productions.

Mr. Channon: I am sure that everyone in the House hopes that these institutions will continue. However, some hon. Members may not know that the GLC never gave a revenue grant to the Royal Opera House. There was only a once-for-all development appeal. Discussions concerning the National Theatre and the London Symphony


Orchestra are taking place between the Arts Council and the GLC. I hope that there will be a satisfactory outcome,

because it has been made clear this afternoon that all hon. Members want both these organisations to continue and go from strength to strength.

Orders of the Day — Rate Support Grant (Lothian Region)

Mr. Gavin Strang: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the decision of the Secretary of State for Scotland to seek authority to make a restrospective cut of £47 million in the rate support grant payable to the Lothian regional council in the current financial year.
The matter relates specifically to the enormous social and economic effects on the people of Lothian of a 30 per cent. cut in this year's rate support grant to the regional council.
Last month more than 10,000 people marched through Edinburgh in an attempt to dissuade the Government from adopting this policy. The local Edinburgh paper described it as one of the largest protest marches to be staged in Scotland's capital city. At the beginning of this month officials of the Lothian regional council estimated that a cut of this magnitude would require the council to serve notice immediately on 15,000 of its 35,000 employees. No estimate has been made of the effect on employment in the private sector of a cut of this magnitude in Government expenditure in Lothian.
Notwithstanding the chaos and hardship that will result from such a cut, the Secretary of State for Scotland made it clear on Friday that he intended to press ahead with this policy. I recognise that the Secretary of State will require the approval of the House and that that decision is normally preceded by a short debate, but I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is an important matter that deserves the urgent attention of the House.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) gave me notice before 12 o'clock midday that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the decision of the Secretary of State for Scotland to seek authority to make a retrospective cut of £47 million in the rate support grant payable to the Lothian regional council in the current financial year.
The hon. Gentleman drew attention to the fact that among the remaining Orders of the Day there is a motion in the name of the Secretary of State for Scotland, which makes it clear that this is a matter that must in any case fall to be discussed by the House.
I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's arguments. Without in any way seeking to diminish the importance and significance of the points that he made, I must rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

Deep Sea Mining (Temporary Provisions) Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1

PROHIBITION OF UNLICENSED DEEP SEA MINING

Mr. Robert Sheldon (Ashton-under-Lyne): I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 2, leave out 'a Scottish firm'.
This is not the most important of the amendments that I have tabled, but I realise that the selection cannot take into account all the matters that failed to be discussed—or were even fully discussed—in Committee. I have put down one or two of the matters that I thought might he worthy of further consideration, and perhaps we can deal with them in subsequent amendments, or, if that is not possible, at any rate on Third Reading, to which we shall come in due course.
My interest in the matter arises because I was involved in the initial United Nations Law of the Sea Conference when I was Financial Secretary to the Treasury Ai: that time I saw what I considered to be the inadequate performance of the Foreign Office in the early part of the last decade. The Foreign Office looked to its international obligations rather more than to Britain's advantages in obtaining a larger share of the North Sea and the consequent riches that were subsequently to be discovered there. If we are to avoid the errors and mistakes that were made at that time there are a number of lessons that we should understand and to which we should remain true.
My detailed interest in the Bill derives not only from that earlier experience, but from a constituent of mine. Mr. Glyn Ford, who was the co-ordinator of the marine resources project at Manchester university, where he is a senior research fellow. An understanding of the importance of the Bill is necessary. I had not fully appreciated all its implications, but we should remember that 70 per cent. of the earth's surface is covered by sea and that it remains the largest natural untapped resource that is available to us. We must avoid the problems that have arisen in the past, and the grab that took place, particularly in the last century, for these resources.
We wanted a greater degree of international agreement. My hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) rightly tabled some of the most important amendments and undertook some of the most important discussions and debates in Committee, ably assisted, as he always is, by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). I am happy to find myself in the company of two such excellent hon. Friends in looking after, as I see it, the interests to which I came late but which they anticipated some time before I did.
The amendment covers a narrower spectrum. It is a probing amendment of the kind that one finds more frequently in Committee than on Report. However, as no adequate explanation was given I thought that I should try to discover, even at this late stage in our proceedings, why special reference has to be made to "a Scottish firm". An abstruse Scottish legal point may be involved, on which


I have stumbled many times in the past. If so, perhaps the Minister will say so. However, it seemed to me rather odd that
a body incorporated under the law of any part of the United Kingdom and…is resident in any part of the United Kingdom
should exclude—or so the legislation suggests—"a Scottish firm". I look forward to hearing the Minister's explanation.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. John MacGregor): I understand why the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) could not be present at our earlier debates. I know that he was much involved in the Committee stage of the Finance Bill this year. He and I have shared the ardours—and sometimes the pleasantries—of the Finance Bill over many years, so I know what a commitment it is. I therefore congratulate him on taking such an interest in the Bill at the end of his labours.
The right hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that the Special Standing Committee procedure was applied to the Bill and that we had as a witness Dr. Vaughan Lowe from the faculty of law at Manchester university. I know the special interest that some people in Manchester have in this subject. I suspect that it may be a probing amendment, and I hope that I can give a satisfactory reply. In Scottish law, a "firm" is a legal term and is, or can be, as much a legal entity as an incorporated body is under the law of the United Kingdom. Scottish firms may, on the basis of the Partnership Act 1890, be treated as legal persons. They may therefore be made subject to a prohibition as in clause 1, and be liable to the criminal penalties that apply if the prohibition is breached. In the rest of the United Kingdom it is only incorporated bodies that may be treated in this way.
It is likely that a number of Scottish firms will be incorporated bodies, but as we were anxious to ensure comprehensiveness, for a reason that I shall give shortly, Scottish firms are included in the Bill. The reason for the completeness is that, as in the United States legislation, all legal entities or persons are covered. We were anxious to do the same for the United Kingdom legislation. It is for similar considerations that we have extensive references to "British persons" throughout the Bill.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: I thought that that might be part of the answer, but the legislation applies to any person who is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. I thought that that would have covered it.

Mr. MacGregor: Since Scottish firms have a separate legal definition, our anxiety was to include anyone who might be covered under provisions in clause 1.
There are precedents for referring to Scottish firms as such. I can give a number of them, but I think that the most relevant, probably—although it is not on all fours—is the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Act 1975. Since that was included there, too, I think that the right hon. Gentleman will see that there are reasons, for the sake of completeness, for including Scottish firms.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: With that explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2

EXPLORATION AND EXPLOITATION LICENCES

Dr. John Cunningham: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 10, leave out 'subsection (4)' and insert 'subsections (4) and (4A)'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 10, in page 3, line 47, at end insert—
'(4A) An exploration or an exploitation licence shall not be granted unless the person applying for the licence specifies two sites, one of which may be licensed, the other to be safeguarded for the use of such organisation as may be set up following international agreement to a Convention arising from the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea; if no such organisation is set up within twenty years of the passing of this Act the latter site may be offered back to the original applicant'.

Dr. Cunningham: Amendment No. 3 is a technical drafting amendment. Amendment No. 10 is of greater substance. It is important, because it is at the heart of one of the principles involved in the Bill—the licensing of deep sea mining. It is also close to one of the major differences between the Government and the Opposition—the position of the "Group of 77" Third world countries, which consists now of more than 130 countries, although it retains the name "Group of 77".
These two important issues are at the heart of the discussions about the United Nations conference on the Law of the Sea and what we hope will be an international convention resulting from those discussions. The issue as set out in amendment No. 10 is important. There is nothing in the proposed legislation to prevent Western industrial nations, or, to be more accurate, consortia from those nations, from taking unlimited numbers of licences to mine the deep ocean bed for nodules.
In those circumstances, all the best sites could be pre-empted by such consortia before any United Nations treaty was concluded and before—I emphasise this—even giving the opportunity for Third world countries to participate. As the House understands, they are not able to participate now because they do not have the technology or the financial ability to put together industrial consortia; in most cases they have neither of those things.
The amendment seeks to prevent the pre-emption of the best commercial and industrial opportunities by requiring each applicant to specify two sites when a licence is applied for, one of which will be allocated to the applicant and the other of which will be banked or reserved for allocation at a later date, under, one hopes, an agreed United Nations treaty when such a treaty is concluded. On the other hand if no treaty is concluded, the amendment provides for the return of the licensed area to the applicant.
3.45 pm
It is common ground between the Government and the Opposition that it is in the best interests of the United Kingdom that such an international regime should be established and that such a treaty should be concluded. That has been the Government's position throughout our discussions, and I understand that it remains so. It is certainly the Opposition's stance. So there is a good deal more at stake in what is being discussed than simply deep sea mining licences, because anything that might jeopardise, delay or prevent the conclusion of such a treaty would jeopardise many of our interests well beyond those of deep sea mining.
It is also important to recognise that not only the United Kingdom but the United States, the Federal Republic of Germany and, we understand, several other Western industrial nations intend to proceed with licensing based on national legislation, and there are already signs that widespread reciprocal arrangements will be reached. This matter was discussed in detail in Committee.
I have already said that the Group of 77 cannot, for the most part, participate in licensing arrangements, whether under the legislation of the United Kingdom or under that of any other country. I cannot stress too strongly the fact that we feel that there is danger in proceeding in this way, not only with this legislation but with legislation that is so generous and so lacking in control of licensing opportunities in terms of the numbers of licences.
I must be fair to the Government and say that there are a number of ways in which they will seek to control activities, but we are talking specifically about the unlimited number of licences that may be applied for and allocated. This kind of approach could damage the prospects of reaching agreement. This point was stressed repeatedly on Second Reading and it was raised in Committee.
During the Committee sittings at which evidence was taken, under the experimental procedure, representatives of the British companies involved in the Kennecott consortium made it clear that they would be prepared to accept the kind of requirement that is set out in the amendment if they had to do so. I am not trying to suggest that they were wholeheartedly in favour of it. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) chuckles. I assure him that one sometimes got the impression in Committee that these large, powerful and influential transnational companies were somehow defenceless in the face of a parliamentary Committee. We all know that nothing could be further from the truth. To be fair to them, they conceded that point.
It is worth emphasising that, because in earlier deliberations the Minister and his hon. Friends had stressed that we should beware of producing legislation that included more onerous conditions than those included in the legislation of other countries. It was feared that that would prevent British companies from applying for licences in Britain and might drive them to apply for licences elsewhere.
It is on record that the representatives of the British companies involved did not feel that that would occur if the suggested provision were included. They said that they could live with it. That is worth bearing in mind. I was about to say that those gentlemen made it clear that they were almost desperate for the umbrella of security given by a British Government licence. However, perhaps "desperate" is too strong a word. They have made it clear that they are keen to have the protection and respectability of a licence issued by the British Government. There was nothing in their evidence—which I have re-read—to suggest that if the provision were added to the legislation they would apply for licences elsewhere. Therefore, we need a better argument than that for rejection.
We have come back to this issue on Report because it lies at the heart of the Bill's proposals and is central to the interests of the Group of 77 and the discussions that have been taking place. I understand the Government's argument. In a sense, I advanced that argument in Committee. The Government do not want to show their hand or to give away negotiating positions. It may well be

that the Government feel that they will be able to concede the point during the final discussions or during the next round of discussions on what a regime should entail under the United Nations' proposals. That point may be conceded as a quid pro quo for other guarantees or conditions. I understand that.
We were told that it was for that reason—among others—that other countries have not included such a provision in their legislation. Since they have not done so, neither should we. However, the contrary of that argument is worth considering. If we were seen to be generous, magnanimous and careful of the interests of the underdeveloped countries, instead of the hard-faced commercial attitude that is seemingly being presented in our activities with the so-called group of like-minded countries that could lead to the agreement that we want.
For once, it would benefit us if Britain were seen to be taking a lead. All too often in our dealings with the Third world we tag along behind the United States of America. I stress that as the legislation stands there is no limit to the number of licences for which a company or organisation may apply. There is nothing in the Bill to allow the Secretary of State to refuse to grant more licences because of the number of licences already granted.
There is nothing in the commercial attitude that has been displayed that will prevent companies, or dissuade them, from pursuing such matters if, after exploration, it appears that there are great commercial advantages to be gained. That is a matter of some dispute, and I do not say that it will automatically happen. However, if it occurs, the scramble for more and more licences is likely to gain momentum. That is another reason for introducing the amendment.
It is envisaged that licences will run for 20 years. That is a long time in terms of commercial world developments or arguments about international regimes. Many companies could have a great number of licences that last for a long time, to the detriment of the interests of Third world nations. In Committee, the Under-Secretary of State, with some generosity, said that he would like to go away and think about the matter. The hon. Gentleman pointed out that until shortly before our consideration in Committee the amendment had been starred. I took his point. He had not had much time to form a definitive view on behalf of the Government. However, he has now had several weeks in which to consider the implications of the points made on Second Reading and in Committee. If he cannot accept the amendment in its entirety I hope that he will give us an assurance that the Government will enter into the spirit of the amendment and that some appropriate alteration will be made to the legislation.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will not accept the amendment, because there are good reasons for rejecting it. Some people are afraid because many licences can be granted. An applicant may apply for several licences if it so desires, but one difficulty is that it will have to provide sufficient funds for the development work. That will be extremely costly, particularly over the years.
The Secretary of State has tabled amendment No. 8,
requiring any exploration or exploitation of the hard mineral resources of the licensed area to be diligently carried out.
If the exploration or exploitation of the resources is not diligently carried out there is a chance that the licence will be revoked. Therefore, the Third world is protected.
I have just picked up from my post a copy of a publication from the Overseas Development Institute, which states:
Also, even if exploitation were to occur in the international seabed area, it is doubtful whether the parallel system would bring significant benefit to the LDCs. Under the parallel system, the Enterprise is placed in direct competition with transnational firms, and it is by no means certain that it will be equipped with adequate financial and technological resources to compete effectively.
If the ODI has concluded that the parallel system of development will not benefit the Third world, why should it be adopted in this legislation?
It is to be observed that clause 18(3) means that as soon as the treaty comes into operation—on the assumption that it has been ratified by the necessary number of countries—the Secretary of State can lay an order revoking the Act. There would then be the distinct possibility that all the provisions contained in the draft treaty would operate. I should have thought that that was the necessary safeguard for the Third world.
4 pm
Annex III article 8 details the reservation of sites for parallel development. One site will be reserved for the applicant and another for those that will be developing on behalf of the Third world, which will be the Enterprise. Unfortunately, linked with this there are a number of other matters in article 151 of the draft treaty, dealing with production ceilings, and in another article dealing with the transfer of technology. It should be borne in mind that production ceilings and the transfer of technology are dependent upon parallel development, and therefore it is premature to suggest at this stage that this subsection should be included in the Bill.
The hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) said that on 28 June 1980 the United States of America made no provision for this matter in its legislation, and there was no such provision in subsequent West German legislation. The hon. Gentleman's argument is that if we adopt a reasonable attitude America and other countries will alter their legislation. However, it must be recognised that the Americans have stood up against the convention and possibly have prevented its ratification in Caracas this year because they are not certain about the provisions for the International Sea Bed Authority and about some of the provisions for the Enterprise. If that is the hard line that they are taking they will not modify their legislation, and neither will the West Germans. If that is an indication of what the French, Japanese and Italians will do, we shall probably be the only country to include such a provision.
The argument that the hon. Member for Whitehaven now puts forward is that private enterprise will accept the clause, if obliged to do so by the Government, because there is no alternative and because it is law-abiding. But it will do so only with the greatest reluctance, because it can see no practical advantages. The Overseas Development Institute, to which I referred earlier, has already indicated that this is rather a pointless exercise.
We had great advantage in having a preliminary analysis before the Bill was considered in Committee. In answer to one of my questions in Committee, Mr. Wood, of the Foreign Office, said that
the two issues to which Mr. Skeet referred—the banking system and the production ceilings—are not in the legislation, but they are in the convention. However, nothing in the legislation will

preclude the operation of those two provisions from the moment that the convention comes into effect. Under the arrangements made at the conference for the protection of interim investments, the banking system could become partially applicable in advance of the convention because companies could voluntarily submit a site to be banked by the future authority."—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 2 June 1981, c. 64.]
That is a clear indication why we should wait for the convention to go through and be accepted. That is also the advantage of a Special Standing Committee.
In a memorandum submitted to the Special Standing Committee on 4 June 1981, Mr. Roderick Ogley of the University of Sussex said that it would be impracticable to include these provisions now. He linked site banking with production policy and made a comment which I think is a complete answer to the hon. Gentleman. He said:
It will be particularly difficult for sites issued under national legislation to comply with conditions (a) and (c), if by the time they are issued the Convention has not been adopted."—(Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 4 June 1981, c. 150.]
We should frame the legislation on the evidence, which I find is against what the hon. Gentleman recommends.
The parallel development—the reservation of one site for the benefit of the Enterprise—is twinned with the transfer of technology. This will have to wait until the convention has decided what it wants. The amendment is certainly premature, as my hon. Friend the Minister observed on 11 June, as reported at column 182 of the Official Report of the Committee proceedings.
On the other side of the bargain there is the ticklish question of the transfer of technology. Will it simply be over the counter and mandatory, having to be given to any country that wants it, or will it be provided on purely commercial terms? It is doubtful whether it will go through as simply as some people suggest.
Parallel development has big disadvantages. The Enterprise, operating under the International Sea Bed Authority, will select the best sites. Is that fair to the private sector? We may draw a comparison with the previous Government's suggestion that the British National Oil Corporation should have prime sites while the private sector should remain outside. What Labour suggested nationally it now suggests internationally. That would be a great disadvantage to the private sector.
The hon. Member will have received from RTZ a letter explaining one or two likely unfair results. At page two of its letter of 16 June to the hon. Gentleman the company says:
There is a considerable body of opinion which holds that the conditions of access are onerous enough to ensure that by proper use of financial incentives the 'reserved' side of the parallel system is the only one that will attract investment.
It is absurd that while sites that could be developed for the Third world are being reserved the Enterprise has no technology or money, while the private firms are available in consortia, with all the money, expertise and technology. They want to produce the nickel, chrome, copper and manganese for the benefit of mankind, but they may be prevented by an enormous international bureaucracy. In those circumstances it would be unwise to make the amendment.

Mr. Frank Hooley: Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), I was prevented from taking part in the Committee stage of the Bill—assuming that I had been selected—by the fact that I was on the Committee


considering the Finance Bill. Therefore, I make no apology for entering the argument at a late stage. I should have been delighted to be involved earlier.
The Bill is dangerous and provocative. It could have implications for this country's interests going far beyond the deep sea mining with which it purports to concern itself.
We are dealing now with a subsection proposed during the hearing of evidence by the Special Standing Committee before its detailed consideration of the Bill. I have not read the Official Report of all the Committee's proceedings but I have read with great interest the preliminary evidence, because I believe that the taking of evidence by Special Standing Committees is a valuable practice and I am delighted that it was employed for this Bill. I pay tribute to the Government for having allowed it on this occasion—because it has given us much background information—information that was valuable to the Committee when it considered the Bill in detail and is valuable to the House on Report.
The objection that many of us have to the Bill is that it could imperil the successful conclusion of the great international treaty that the United Nations has been battling to produce since, I think, 1973. The amendment endeavours to soften the impact of the Bill by at least making a bow in the direction of the international obligations of Britain, and the obligations that we may have to assume if the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea successfully concludes its labours. It is unlucky that the change in the American Administration nine months ago has held up its conclusion. There was every hope that the virtually agreed negotiating text would be ratified, possibly in August or later this year. That has been blocked by the attitude of the new American Government.
It is therefore all the more important that if we adopt the Bill—and I shall vote against it—we include in it the provision in amendment No. 10. It acknowledges the existence of the international interest and the possibility that, if the legislation is passed, there will be some way to fit into it, whatever the United Nations may eventually legislate when the convention is successfully concluded within the next 12 months.
The treaty under discussion will be the greatest ever arrived at. It will be the most comprehensive, far-reaching, and, in many respects, the most important to which Britain has ever put its signature. I hope that when it is concluded Britain will not only sign it but will ratify what is provided in it. It contains a whole new concept in international law, namely, the international exploitation of the natural resources of the planet.
I do not know of any other arrangement that proposes such an international body. I am not talking about a private multinational company. Many of them are involved in exploiting the resources of the earth. I am talking about a genuine international body which, some years hence, may grub up metal ores which could prove extremely valuable. That is a new principle. Hitherto it has been left to the RTZs, the Kennecotts, and so on—with token authority from national Governments—to grab whatever was available and to sell it at a handsome profit for their shareholders.
I was amused when the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) said that the multinationals would operate on behalf of mankind. They have never done that. They operate on behalf of their shareholders and for their own profits. That

is exactly what they propose to do in deep sea mining. The creation of an International Sea Bed Authority is designed to provide some offset to the rapacity of the multinationals operating under the authority of certain Western Governments.
It has been argued that we must not include the amendment because neither the Americans nor the Germans have a similar provision in their legislation. I have never heard such a weak argument. There is a powerful objection to the legislation of both the United States and West Germany. The same objection applies to the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) said, most countries regard this legislation as a threat to the whole principle of the law of the sea conference. They argue with considerable cogency that the Western industrial. States wish to pre-empt the eventual provisions of the convention.
We are providing only a cloak of legality, because there are serious questions about how we can enforce our authority if the multinationals come into conflict with some other country or body Let us suppose that they mine the deep sea bed under the provisions of the Bill and run into the ships or equipment of some other country that is doing likewise. Who decides what is lawful? How do we defend their operations, having given them a licence to operate under the Bill?
4.15 pm
If the amendment is accepted it will be a gesture to the international community to show that we do not intend to give indiscriminate authority to multinationals to mine anywhere. It will show that we hope that the United Nations conference on the law of the sea will carry its labours to a successful conclusion and that we intend to become a party to whatever agreement emerges. It will show that we recognise the principle of an International Sea Bed Authority—indeed, the Bill suggests that certain areas should be allocated for its operations. It will show that we are attempting to put some limitation upon the activities of the multinationals that we purport to authorise under the Bill. For all those reasons the amendment is desirable, although I am opposed in principle to the Bill.
We shall have an opportunity to discuss the other implications of the Bill when we reach the other amendments, and also on Third Reading. I hope that the amendment is accepted by the Government. If it is not, it will be one more reason for voting against the Bill on Third Reading.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley), I wish to speak in favour of the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham).
We are dealing essentially with a political decision. We must consider other countries that do not have a particular stake in the freedom of the seas and the extraction of the minerals that lie beneath them, yet have a stake because they occupy their share of this planet. Therefore, they have a claim to its resources. That is a newish principle, but it is becoming generally accepted. Many of us hope to see it resulting from the United Nations conference on the law of the sea.
It is regrettable that the Americans withdrew from the negotiations, pending a full review. Because of that, we have had to wait for the conclusion of the convention. A great argument is taking place in America about whether they want an agreement, yet both sides of the House take


that agreement for granted. The Americans fear over-regulation and that they will be denied what they call free access to the oceans.
Free access to common heritage is not something about which we can be wholly happy. Many of us are uneasy, because we feel that this is not merely a delaying tactic while the new Administration starts its examination but a policy that is basically opposed to the ends that many of us take for granted.

Mr. Skeet: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Group of 77 being given access to the oceans of the world. Is he aware that the draft treaty precludes that in many ways, because the exclusive economic zone extends to 200 miles and the continental shelf, covered by a separate part of the treaty, covers a large part of the natural resources of the globe in any event?

Mr. Sheldon: I do not deny that. There is not access to all the oceans of the world. We are aware of the arguments that led to a sensible conclusion being reached. The Bill refers to the greater part of the oceans.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven said, there is nothing to prevent a vast number of licences from being obtained to mine the nodules. It may be that the fears of the Third world will be justified and that all the best sites and the most attractive prospects will be taken by Western countries. It may be that there will be little left for generations that come to an agreement of a sort that we have been unable so far to obtain.
The amendment seeks to limit the takeover of the oceans by the West. Whatever we say about the freedom of the seas we must be under no misapprehension that the developing countries regard the actions that will follow Bills of this sort as a new form of imperialism. They see it as a new way in which the resources of the planet will be carved up among the wealthy countries of the West. There will be great anger as they see some of the especially valuable resources taken for the advantage of one group of nations. There may be benefits about which we know nothing to be discovered under the sea—benefits that will automatically accrue to the nations that have political weight and financial muscle. The countries that caused so much distress as they occupied the land mass of the world in their colonising period are likely to occupy large portions of the sea as well.
We regard it as a form of generosity whereby large firms that are Western orientated extract useful and valuable minerals for the benefit of the world. That is purely a Western orientated view and not one that is shared by many other countries. The West sees itself as a group of technologically advanced countries creating the basis of wealth. Other countries do not see it in that light.
In a number of respects the developing countries are right, and what we are doing can be shown to be wholly selfish. For example, United States legislation insists that the processing of the nodules must take place in the United States. The nodules might be collected somewhere near a developing country. That does not matter. They will have to be processed in the United States. The ships that carry the nodules will have to be United States ships. They will have to sail under the United States flag. Processing costs are a major portion of the total cost.
Let us consider the two major forms of extraction. I understand that some plants extract the three metals of

nickel, cobalt and copper. There are other plants that extract those three metals and manganese. I believe that there is provision for a third process that takes seven metals—the four that I have mentioned and molybdenum, vanadium and zinc. Processing represents the major cost. The developing countries will be denied a share in the processing from United States mining ventures.
If the costs are expressed in percentages, mining represents about 20 per cent., transport 15 per cent. and processing about 65 per cent. Two-thirds of the cost is incurred in the country where the nodules are processed. These elements are being denied to the developing countries. I am grateful to the marine resources project at Manchester university for drawing these matters to my attention.
We must remember that the capital costs are large. We are talking about billions of pounds. Capital costs are roughly the same as costs in the processing sector and amount to nearly 70 per cent. As I said, about 70 per cent. of all the billions of pounds lie in processing. The developing countries are being denied the advantage to be gained from processing.
We are discussing a major new industry which may operate to the advantage of a number of third countries. Their possible proximity to the sites may allow them to take advantage of the industry. They are bound to express a direct and close interest. Surely there should be a wish to involve these countries in the development of resources that are near to them, but even that is being denied them.
These are matters that may be decided in the earliest stages of technology. The future of many industries of the nineteenth century was decided by certain arrangements that were made towards the end of the eighteenth century—for example, the development of the steam engine. In the same way, we can decide how these matters before us will be handled for many years to come. There are long-term implications. It will be a business of about £4 billion to £8 billion that will produce about 3 million tonnes a year. It will bring a number of advantages, especially in terms of key minerals.
It is important to let the developing countries know that they have a stake in the business. The amendment seeks to make that clear and is worthy of support.

Mr. MacGregor: In most of their remarks the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) and the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) went much wider than the specific amendment and dealt with some of the principles and general issues involved in the Bill. I make no complaint about that because I understand that neither of them was able to participate in our discussions, even on Second Reading, because of their involvement with the Finance Bill. They were certainly unable to participate in Committee. I understand that they wanted to place their arguments on record.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman will understand that many of the matters to which they referred were taken up on Second Reading and that they were rehearsed on many occasions in Committee. I shall attempt to deal with some of the wider issues on Third Reading if I am able to catch the eye of the Chair.
The Government have always made it clear that they regard the Bill as a temporary measure. Indeed, two of the words in the title are "Temporary Provisions". We have made it clear that we wish to see the convention come into


force, and we hope that it will be supported. We have made it clear also that we hope that the convention will overtake the Bill.
I have given a considerable number of assurances during the Bill's passage through the House. The Government want the treaty, and so do the mining companies. They made it clear in their evidence before the Special Standing Committee that the Bill will be only an interim and provisional measure of protection for them. It will never amount to complete protection. They regard the coming into force of a treaty as a desirable development.
I shall focus on the narrow issues raised by the amendment. I said in Committee that I would reconsider the issue before Report, although I added:
I must make it clear that this is not a commitment to include such a provision in the Bill. I have explained why I think that it would be difficult to enshrine such a provision in the legislation."—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee;11 June 1981, c. 158.]
4.30 pm
I shall look at the background before coming to the amendment. The present draft negotiating text of the convention envisages a parallel system of development under which there is an exchange for assured access to the mineral resources of half of the area of the deep sea bed. The industrialised countries and their mining companies are expected to facilitate mining operations by the international body, the Enterprise, in the other half of the area.
The draft convention provides three principal methods for that: first, the provision of finance by Government grants and loans and by contractual payments by mining companies; secondly, the transfer of technology—which has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members—on fair and reasonable terms and conditions from mining companies to the international Enterprise; thirdly, the provision of a prospected mine site for every commercial project to be banked for development by the international Enterprise or by developing countries. That is the subject of the amendment. The crucial point is that, as yet, various aspects of those proposals are still to be agreed by all participants al the UNCLOS. Therefore, it would be premature to write any similar provisions into what is, after all, our interim legislation.
Before I come to three main reasons that I must give to the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) on why I still come to the conclusion that it would not be right to include this provision in the Bill, I shall refer to one point that he made when he talked about what he regarded as the danger of an unlimited number of licences.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) for what he said, not only on this matter but for the many good points that he has made both in this debate and earlier in our proceedings, when he has put his long experience and knowledge to good use.
On this issue, my hon. Friend said that amendment No. 8—which I shall move later and which we discussed in Committee, and which originated from a proposal by the hon. Member for Whitehaven—would go a long way towards ensuring that there was not an unlimited number of licences. We shall discuss that amendment later, and I shall be able to give the reasons then, but it is relevant to note that in the context of this amendment because it helps to deal with the hon. Member's fear.
There are three compelling reasons why I and the Government believe that it would be inappropriate to

include provisions for banking sites in the Bill, as distinct from in the convention, as proposed in amendment No. 10. I made this point in Committee. One reason is that it would make licensing under our Bill much more onerous for applicants than the arrangements under the laws of the other countries that have so far passed similar legislation—the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany.
The hon. Member for Heeley described that as a thin argument. I do not believe that it is. The main reason why we are anxious to have the Bill now is to give our mining companies the opportunity to apply for licences under British legislation, as they wish to do, all other things being equal. It at least gives them the opportunity to do so. Some of the advantages of doing so were thoroughly gone over in Special Standing Committee and in Committee.
If those companies find that they have to undertake certain conditions which they regard as onerous at this stage of the development and which do not apply in the American and German legislation, that will be a clear disincentive to them to do it under the United Kingdom legislation. In Special Standing Committee the hon. Member for Whitehaven said that that matter was raised with the mining companies and that they said that they could live with the banking of licences. The expression
live with the banking of licences
was his own phrase in his question to Mr. Moncrieff:
Could you live with the banking of licences?
to which Mr. Moncrieff replied
Yes.
The important point is that the whole of that section of questioning was not about the Bill but about the treaty. In the question that led on to the later question, the hon. Member for Whitehaven said:
Both those issues"—
that was the transfer of technology and the banking of licences—
are mentioned in your appendix 3 as points that you regard as being against your interests. They may well be, but are you really implying that the consortia would make those points absolute sticking points on any convention?
Mr. Moncrieff replied:
I was not implying that".—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 4 June 1981; c. 144.]
He went on to give an answer.
The hon. Member for Whitehaven talked about "on any convention". As he was asking the question in the context of the convention it was clearly in the minds of those who were answering on behalf of the mining companies that he was dealing with the banking of licences in a convention and not in interim legislation in one nation State alone.

Dr. Cunningham: That is a pretty fine point.

Mr. MacGregor: It is not a pretty fine point. It is an important point for the mining companies. It is perhaps unfortunate that they cannot now speak for themselves. It is clear from the process of questioning that that is what they meant.

Dr. John Cunningham: It is a fine point. Everyone was at pains to say during the discussions and the evidence, as well as on the deliberations on the Bill, that it was his intention to produce as smooth as possible a transition from the proposed legislation to a convention and international treaty. If that was in the minds of the


companies, and if it is in the mind of the Government, I cannot see how one thing could be a sticking point on the legislation but not on the treaty.

Mr. MacGregor: Certainly it was designed to have a smoother transition. That is not to say that when the arrangements for banking of licences have not yet been agreed in the draft convention we should push them into the Bill when they do not exist in any other legislation that is meant to lead to the ultimate convention. That was the context in which the mining companies said the they could "live with it".
That leads me on to the second point. Even if the amendments were accepted, by making this gesture of good will—it is a gesture, as Opposition Members have said—that would not assure our licensees of continuity of investment and smooth development when the international regime came into force. The crucial point is that to get that continuity of investment those companies may have to rely on the wider preliminary investment protection, which we discussed at length in Committee. There is as yet no provision in the draft UNCLOS text for preliminary investment protection. That is the crucial point about continuity and smooth development.
That leads me on to my third point, which is important. The hon. Member for Whitehaven in part conceded that in Committee. If that provision were in the Bill it would prejudice our negotiating hard at UNCLOS when we negotiate the preliminary investment protection arrangement, which is of such importance to the mining companies. The hon. Member said:
That point would be accepted by almost all Committee members, any politician or negotiator, and certainly by any former trade union official. Because of the trade-off—the situation of give and take in negotiations—the British Government might wish to keep some matters in reserve."—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee,11 June 1981; c. 155.]
That was a fair point then and is a fair point for me to make now. Banking sites for the Enterprise are an important part of what might be offered to obtain adequate arrangements for that preliminary investment protection, which is so important in the negotiations, and for a smooth transition from national interim licensing to the treaty regime.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: It is clear that before the legislation was introduced we had the United States and West German legislation and there were discussions between the three countries concerned. I am not sure what form those discussions took. Was the banking of licences discussed?

Mr. MacGregor: I am not aware of the precise answer to that question, because, as the right hon. Member will know, our legislation has come a good deal later than the original American legislation. The crucial point is that the whole question of banking has not been fully sorted out in the draft convention. It will be an important part of the discussion of preliminary investment protection, which is to take place at the conference.
We had a fairly long discussion about this proposal in Committee. We have been able to go over the most important points again today. As I explained in Committee, I am not out of sympathy with the ultimate intention behind the amendments. Indeed, in the right circumstances, which I have spelt out, as part of an

effective preliminary investment protection arrangement, already agreed and applying internationally in advance of the treaty coming into force and operated by the preparatory commission—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford in Committee—as part of an eventual treaty regime, such banking arrangements could be generally helpful.
I am satisfied that the Bill in its present form will enable the Secretary of State to allow for a site banking arrangement within his discretion to grant licences in pursuance of clause 2(2) to comply with any preliminary investment protection arrangement that may be agreed at UNCLOS, and that that could apply whether or not a treaty is in prospect or, indeed, as the hon. Member for Whitehaven said, if, as we all hope will not be the case, no treaty eventually comes.
I hope that that is a clear indication of our sympathy with the ultimate intention of the amendments, but for the practical and important reasons that I have given I ask the House to reject them.

Dr. John Cunningham: I listened carefully to what the Minister said towards the end of his remarks. It is always difficult to gauge precisely what is being said, and we are not allowed action replays, which may be an advantage at times. However, I am not convinced that we should not force the amendment to a Division. The matter is of great importance to Third world countries and also to us, in the sense that our approach to the law of the sea conference and to deep sea mining opportunities will be judged by what we do in this legislation.
Amendment No. 8 offers some hope, but it does not enable the Secretary of State to limit the number of licences. It enables him only to impose a condition on licences. It would in some circumstances allow revocation or termination of licences, but it would not enable the Secretary of State to refuse a licence in the first place. It would, first, have to become apparent after consideration of a company's operations that it was not fulfilling a condition of the licence. Although the amendment is welcome, it does not resolve the fundamental problem.
The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) implied that if the banking of licences were in force the Enterprise would dominate the situation by picking the best sites. That is nonsense. The Enterprise is not yet in existence, and may not be for many years, which is one of our fundamental concerns. The Government argued that one reason for proceeding is that agreement on a convention may be a long way off, which is all the more reason to be careful what we do in the interim. However, it is the companies that know the circumstances on the sea bed, and in the foreseeable future they alone will have that knowledge, even though Governments will have the right to information. The Enterprise will have none of that information, so the argument that it would be in a dominant position if the condition were included is not well based. Therefore, at a later stage I shall wish to divide the House on amendment No. 10.
However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment No. 3.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dr. John Cunningham: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 3, line 26, at end insert—
'(b) relating to the arrangements to be made with regard to the recognition of bona fide trade unions for collective bargaining'.
We are concerned that one condition for the issue of a licence is that recognition be granted to trade unions for collective and wage bargaining and other purposes. The amendment seeks to ensure that the opportunity exists.
If deep sea mining takes place, it will, first and foremost, be in the northern mid-Pacific—the so-called Clarion-Clipperton zone—many thousands of miles from the United Kingdom. Numerous vessels may be operating under United Kingdom licences in the area. They will be a long way from their home base and from trade union activity in the United Kingdom.
Experience in the North Sea leads us to conclude that many difficulties would be overcome from the beginning if trade union recognition could be granted. Matters that undoubtedly will arise can be more effectively dealt with if there is a guarantee that trade unions whose members are recruited for these operations have a right to represent those members in negotiations, discussions and disputes concerning wages and conditions, developments on board vessels, health and safety, and so on, which may be of grave importance. I am referring not only to wages. We should remember conditions in the British sector of the North Sea.
The Government are bound to say that when the North Sea development negotiations were taking place the Labour Government did not include such provisions, but that is not a good argument for refusing the proposal. It would be interesting if the Government only took action that the previous Administration considered right or sensible.
In diving safety, for instance, we have seen how disputes can arise, drag on and be aggravated through refusal to recognise bona fide trade union representatives, who should be party to discussions, and the North Sea operations are comparatively close to the United Kingdom. It will be much more difficult for trade union officials to become involved in negotiations on vessels thousands of miles away if employers frustrate their attempts to represent their people.
The amendment seeks to give people who have joined trade unions—I emphasise that—the statutory right to recognition for those trade unions. It is not to enforce a closed shop or to force people into trade unions in the first place. It is to guarantee that once they have decided for themselves that it is in their interests to belong to a trade union organisation, no employer will be able to refuse that organisation the right to represent them in whatever circumstances may crop up. I emphasise again that it is not just a matter of talking about money. The other issues are as important, if not more important, in many respects.
We know all too well how difficult, serious and, indeed, deadly some of the problems can be. One thinks, for example, of the "Alexander L. Keilland" affair in which some of my constituents lost their lives. These matters are very near and dear to the hearts of trade unions, as no doubt they are to employers. I know, of course, that those who will be involved in the consortia will not be careless of these matters. Nevertheless, our experience leads us to conclude that trade union involvement from the beginning—the involvement of the people doing the day-to-day work on these vessels—will lead to greater safety, greater improvement in working practices and probably smoother operation, which in themselves will be of major benefit not only to the men but to the organisation for which they are working.
Already some other countries grant this kind of right. I understand that in Norway, Denmark and Canada this recognition right may be granted in certain circumstances. Indeed, I understand that in Norwegian operations there must be workers' representatives on each rig, platform or vessel before it can operate. That is the point that I am trying to drive home. The involvement of trade unions on that kind of basis can make a major contribution to the operation.
I understand from what the Under-Secretary said in Committee that only ships will be involved in these operations, or, to put it another way, that there will be no designation of the vessels as anything other than ships, so far as he could tell. The experience of the National Union of Seamen certainly shows that in the communities which exist on vessels far from home the self-discipline of the work force in belonging to a union and exerting a force for good in these circumstances may have a major impact. I ask the Minister to recognise that point. Perhaps he already does. I ask him to recognise this approach, of which the National Union of Seamen in particular may be proud and which it seeks to foster and develop.
We know that the vessels will be expensive and will involve a great deal of capital investment. They are unlikely ever to return to the United Kingdom, if indeed they originate here. They will probably be serviced from the west coast of the United States. In view of the capital involved they will probably spend only very short periods in port, except for major refits or if things go seriously wrong. The opportunity for the people working on them to contact others or for others to contact them will therefore be limited. It goes 'without saying that it will not be easy for trade union representatives, at the drop of a hat, to leave Britain and fly off, as they would have to, to the west coast of America to try to help in difficult circumstances—disputes or, worse, strikes if they were to occur. One reason for the amendment is therefore to avoid disputes about recognition. Union recognition itself can he a source of dispute, argument and debate. Its acceptance as part of one of many conditions of the licence would be beneficial in that regard.
We had a brief discussion on this in Committee. The Under-Secretary indicated then, as he indicated on a previous amendment, that he did not feel that this condition should be imposed, because it would place more onerous conditions upon people operating under British licences. I am bound to say that the kind of conditions that the Americans have already enacted with reference to vessels in other respects are far more onerous than this. I refer to provisions which ensure the use of American flag vessels by people operating under American licences. I think that the Minister knows the point well. The condition that we seek pales into insignificance when compared with that. That argument is therefore no basis for rejecting our proposal.
I also emphasise that we are not seeking to ensure that everyone must be a member of a trade union before the licence is granted or that such a guarantee should be given. I think that there was some misunderstanding of our argument in Committee on that point. We simply seek a condition of the licence.
I hope that I have gone some way towards meeting the Under-Secretary's point in Committee that even if he were willing to accept such a proposal it would not have been at the point in the Bill that we then proposed. We have changed the reference point to cover that. We now propose


that the amendment should be made to clause 2 in relation to the conditions applying to licences. Immediately before the point at which the amendment would occur clause 2 provides:
An exploration or an exploitation licence shall be granted for such period as the Secretary of State thinks fit and shall contain such terms and conditions as he thinks fit and, in particular…may include terms and conditions".
This is one of the terms and conditions that we think he "may" impose. We have therefore gone a considerable way in retabling the amendment to meet the objections that the Government felt were important in Committee.
I hope that the Government will now accept the amendment and concede this very important point.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: My hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) was very moderate in his explanation of the amendment. The amendment merely enables the Government to impose these terms and conditions. I tabled an amendment on the question of safety, to leave out "may" and insert "shall", so that on all matters of safety those concerned would not have the option of including "such terms and conditions" but would be compelled to do so. I should like to see the matter pursued further in regard to trade union activity. As the only amendment that we have before us deals with the permission to include terms and conditions relating to trade union matters, I should have thought that the Minister would have no difficulty whatever in accepting it.
5 pm
We are dealing not only with the deep sea and the dangers and problems of divers but with the need to control matters at a distance. My hon. Friend was right in suggesting that we need legislation so that some control can be exercised over distances of thousands of miles. That control should also be clarified in advance so that we know the conditions.
Legislation relating to the United States and Germany already exists, in addition to this Bill. There are, as we know, reciprocal recognition and taxation provisions, all fitting together. The fact that there are three bodies of similar legislation suggests either that we are complying with the United States and the German legislation which preceded ours or—as I suspect is much more likely—that discussions took place before any of the legislation was proposed.
What representations did the United Kingdom Government make? If discussions took place before the legislation it would be useful to know whether we are complying with the United States and German legislation. Again, if there were such discussions—I feel sure that there must have been—before any of the legislation was drafted, what representations did the British Government make, for example, about trade unions and their introduction into matters of safety, and so on?
I am concerned that many of these matters are left to the Foreign Office, which has a lofty approach and tries to ensure that there are smooth international agreements, working in the best diplomatic tradition. We have seen sell-outs in the past. The Foreign Office cannot raise its head in pride in dealing with this matter when attention is drawn to the billions of pounds of North Sea oil that it squandered by its attempt to ensure that there was smooth international co-operation.
I am concerned that we may see a repetition of the pattern of the past. I should like to be assured that the Minister is not prepared to allow the Foreign Office to prevail and that he will seek to impose the views of his Department concerning trade unions and their right to be included in the terms and conditions.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) has been very moderate in his approach.
I at once declare an interest, as a member of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers. I base my argument for trade union representation on the technology that is involved in deep sea mining. In deep sea mining, once the zone for exploration has been discovered, one moves quickly into exploitation. The technology for exploitation is large, complicated, and highly individualistic in terms of the skills involved, and therefore there is a strong case for integrating the skills.
The operations are carried out at considerable depths, and a substantial piece of capital equipment has to go on to the sea bed. The placing of that equipment on the sea bed is extremely complicated. The gaining of the nodules from the sea bed is also complicated, as is the loading of the tankers or bulk carriers. The need to integrate the process in labour terms is considerable. Therefore, if there are no trade unions or trade union-type organisations on board already there will be a need almost to create them.
I am arguing that the United Kingdom licensees should accept that need immediately. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will tell us that there is no need to impose these terribly onerous conditions on our companies, but I should imagine that where United States companies are involved the relevant American seamen's organisations will be in there from the start. If that is not the case I should like to have some indication of the position from the Under-Secretary. If Norwegian companies are involved I should think that it would go almost without saying that Norwegian seamen's organisations will be there from the start.
I cannot see how that sort of arrangement could be regarded as detrimental in any way, and the Under-Secretary would have to go a long way to persuade me otherwise. I am sure that it will be for the benefit of United Kingdom organisations, given that they are operating far from their home ports, and given also that they are operating a new type of technology.
We have here an almost continuous mining process on a shift system, and I should have thought that it was essential that the people involved should have confidence in the health and safety provisions and should have confidence over and above mere individual representation in a consortium. The organisations concerned ought to recognise that the people operating the complicated capital equipment would feel much safer and more secure if they could call on the resources of the trade union experts back home when considering how to operate difficult processes.
The Under-Secretary is usually forthcoming, and we are not imposing a condition on him that he must include in the licence. We are simply proposing that he may include it. He has some discretion. I hope that in regard to the United Kingdom licensees he will give great consideration to this aspect before any licence is granted.

Mr. John Prescott: Like some of my hon. Friends, I was unable to take part in the Committee proceedings on this important Bill because of parliamentary duties. I have a great interest in the Bill, particularly with regard to safety at sea, partly because of my background as a sponsored member of the National Union of Seamen and partly because of the important differences between rich and poor, which seem to polarise further beyond the 200 miles.
It is interesting to note that we are discussing a subject similar to a matter that we discussed last week. That issue—flags of convenience and the question whether the Third world will have a chance to be able to develop its shipping fleets—also splits the world between the rich and the poor. The Government were prepared to support the flags of convenience line, and in the matter of freedom of trade they supported the "no coercion argument", which inevitably means poorer working conditions and standards for those employed on these vessels. I shall not repeat what we said, though the issues at the heart of the argument about mineral rights in the deep sea mining areas are similar.
I am pleased to have been associated with a number of Labour Members in a report on this matter, which we produced a few years ago. We went into all the essential principles and naturally, as Socialists, we approached the matter on a Socialist basis. We supported the idea of an international authority. We recognised that the wealth beyond the 200-mile limit should be available to mankind. Therefore we wanted a means of finding an international mechanism so that the rich did not get richer and the poor did not get poorer—that is all too evidently how the world is run today.
For us, the principle is clear. We support the international agencies and I feel that the Bill, like the American or German legislation, is a means to enable companies to put pressure on the international authorities to come to an agreement on the companies' terms. If that fails, they have the right to go out unilaterally to plunder this wealth which is available only to those developed nations that have the necessary technology.
There is an important and essential principle involved here, and I wish to identify myself with my colleagues who have spoken to that effect, not only here but in Committee. The amendment concerns employment rights. Clause 2 lays down conditions which may influence the Secretary of State when he issues a licence. It specifies the types of conditions to be imposed on those who seek to have licences under the authority of the Secretary of State.
In clause 2(3)(a) one can see the various matters to which those specific conditions apply. In our amendment we are concerned to put in a new paragraph (b), which is directly concerned with the recognition of the rights of employees to organise for some of the advantages mentioned by my hon. Friends. It follows from the first condition, which is concerned with the safety, health and welfare of the seamen but which does not recognise or accept that trade union recognition is one of the conditions essential to the rights of those employed in deep sea mining.
In the categories of health, safety and welfare, the rights of the employees and the benefits they gain are determined by the organisation that represents them and the type of men who will be on board to represent their colleagues, to see that conditions laid down by the

Secretary of State on the other side of the world are enforced. That is the important part that trade union organisations play in this matter.
The conditions that the United Kingdom lays down in licences regarding the health, safety and welfare of the seamen will be crucial. What is more important is the nature of enforcement. I notice that in Committee the argument was whether one should simply leave the flag standard to determine what conditions may apply on ships which, although given a licence, may not be British ships.
Unfortunately, because we do not have a convention about these matters, or, indeed, about the law of the sea itself, we are not able to look to the United Nations to determine what minimum standards should apply. As the debate last week showed, all too often the standards imposed by the flag are not observed. It is one thing to recognise an international convention; it is another to see that it is observed and carried out. There is considerable evidence to show that that is so—it is true of British flags as well. We gave some evidence last week of British flags being flown by ships that have no trade union recognition. The British flag is used as a flag of convenience and the vessel is registered in the Cayman Islands. I dealt with that aspect last week.
5.15 pm
In Committee the Minister seemed to shelter behind the issue of the flag standard. Presumably he thinks that all nations that observe standards will see that they are implemented and that Panama and Liberia have enforcement agencies comparable to those of the traditional maritime countries of Norway and Great Britain. Unfortunately, that is not true. In many cases flag of convenience vessels do not even visit places such as Panama and Liberia for inspection. That is where the term "flag of convenience" comes from; it is convenient to register under that flag and for operators to do whatever they like, no matter what they say they will do, particularly as regards safety, health, welfare and trade union recognition.
As we showed in last week's debate, the flag of convenience system leads to deplorable conditions and high incidences of deaths, accidents and losses of vessels. All that results from the lack of proper enforcement agencies. The enforcement of whatever standards are determined is crucial.
Enforcement of discipline on board ships and legislation and safety provisions are normally the responsibility of the Department of Trade. Conditions on production or exploration oil rigs are the responsibility of the Department of Energy. I hope that the Minister will tell us which Department will be responsible for deep sea mining vessels. The Department of Energy is the sponsoring Department, but I am not sure whether the marine activity will come under the Department of Trade. If so, that Department will be responsible for safety, health, welfare and trade union recognition.
We can be sure that the Health and Safety Commission will not be responsible. That is unfortunate, because a number of Labour Members feel strongly about that matter and supported the minority report of the Burgoyne committee, which suggested that the scope of the commission should be extended to energy matters, and, in my opinion, to trade matters. That will not apply to deep sea mining operations, because whether the Department of Trade or the Department of Energy is responsible, civil


servants in both Departments have been strong enough, even under the Labour Government, to resist the extension of the powers of the HSC.
We were fortunate enough to get responsibility for health and safety in agriculture and mining transferred to the commission, but we failed to do that for energy and trade. We are concerned about safety, and we claim that trade union recognition is an important factor in that regard. A Financial Times survey earlier this year considered the accident and death records of mining, agriculture, marine and North Sea operations since the formation of the HSC. It was interesting to note that all those areas reduced accidents and deaths and that the two Departments that did not do so were the Departments of Energy and Trade. That reflects on how we organise controls on the enforcement of safety standards.
Seamen tend to think of welfare as being covered by the seamen's missions, but there is a lot more to it than merely looking after the spiritual well-being of our seafarers. Conditions of employment, leave arrangements, weekend work, uniform provision, working rosters, accommodation and so on are all concerned with men living in close confines for a considerable time. Normal matters of tension in a place of work may seem small in other circumstances, but they have a great propensity for becoming a considerable grievance when it is difficult for men to get away from their place of work and when they live with the problem day in and day out.
That is the atmosphere in which industrial relations have to be conducted in a marine operation. It is therefore crucial to seek means by which a grievance can find a legitimate outlet before there is an explosion over an issue that may seem small, but that can have considerable effects. That is why it is important, as my hon. Friend the Member of Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) pointed out, to maintain the continuity of the industry and the role that trade unions play in that process. Trade union representation is crucial to good shipboard relations and the carrying out of work operation at sea. All these are matters of collective agreement.
It is true that the old shipping Acts, going back to the Merchant Shipping Act 1894, with which I had to live and which I detested, were changed following the 1966 seamen's strike, which brought me to the House. I thank God that they have been changed. A captain is no longer the lord and master and able to do what the heck he likes. There are now checks and controls over powers aboard a vessel. The old Acts defined how much butter, sugar and margarine must be given to a seafarer. This was necessary because without trade union recognition the employer found ways to cut corners. In the early days the House laid down conditions. Today the seafaring unions agree those conditions by collective negotiation and bargaining.
The trade unions are strong in the seafaring industry. The industry has a closed shop agreement. The amendment that we are discussing does not ask for a closed shop agreement, but I believe that one is needed. That is not only my view. The Conservative Government's Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 tried to outlaw the closed shop. Even that Government had to recognise, however, that in two areas the closed shop was essential, namely, Equity for actors and the National Union of Seamen for seafarers. A special provision was made to

exempt those two organisations, because the Tory Government recognised the essential nature of the closed shop operation.
The amendment debated in Committee related to clause 8, dealing with foreign discriminatory action. However, the Minister addressed himself to the principle rather than to the limited area of the amendment. The hon. Gentleman argued that these conditions could not be imposed because ships of other countries were also involved. That is true. The ship may be Panamanian or Liberian. I do not consider that the Minister should adopt two standards for safety, health and welfare, depending upon whether the Panamanian or Liberian authorities impose such standards on a ship of a flag given a licence by the Minister. One standard should be enforced. That is not guaranteed by the flag State. All too often there can be evidence of cheap labour and no taxation agreements. This works predictably to the disadvantage of British labour.
My hon. Friends the Members for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas) and for Whitehaven have referred to what happens in other countries and to the trade union clauses in Norwegian and French legislation. We can be certain that enforcement by those countries will ensure that minimum standards are imposed. All too often, however, the drift is towards flags of convenience where such standards are not applied.
The amendment is not concerned with British trade unions. It relates to bona fide trade unions. We recognise French and Norwegian standards in the North Sea. Matters can work to our disadvantage. Three or four weeks ago a British holder rig, organised by my union, went from the North Sea to Irish waters. All the British labour was kicked off the ship because the Irish argued that in Irish waters they wanted Irish conditions and labour. That is also the situation that we face with Norway, France and the United States. When it comes to the silly British, everything goes in British waters, to the disadvantage of British labour. This situation is no longer acceptable. We shall not tolerate it much longer. Discussions are already taking place with the Government to overcome the problems.
Another argument deployed in Committee was, according to the Minister, much more fundamental. The hon. Gentleman argued that we would be putting into our legislation a statutory requirement for recognition of trade unions at the place of work. I hear much from trade unions about past and present Tory Governments discussing the possibility of a statutory requirement offering the opportunity not to belong to a trade union. Leaving that aside, it must be stated in defence of the amendment that under clause 2 the Secretary of State has to take into account only those conditions that he thinks fit. That permits a great deal of latitude over interpretation.
The amendment seeks only arrangements regarding the recognition of trade unions. This can be simply the right of access. One cannot simply go to the factory gate and ask a worker if he will join a union. One has to get out into the North Sea and the Pacific to attend to grievances and to ask a worker whether he wants to belong to a union. It should not be made tougher for a man to join a union because he happens to be located in mid-Pacific rather than in Blackburn. There is enough prejudice from employers without making it geographically almost impossible for a man to exercise his right to belong to a trade union.
The amendment, while not requiring a closed shop, recognises the difficulties. It asserts that trade unions should be given the right to convince workers that they


should join a trade union. Access is vital. I do not believe that the answers given by the Minister in Committee on 18 June against the mid-Pacific argument are very convincing. The hon. Gentleman argued that there was nothing different about the shipping industry.
The essential difference is that the shipping industry is a closed shop. If there is a problem anywhere in the world, the owners have to ask for a trade union representative to be sent to solve the problem. Those representatives are sent at the owners' expense, because the owners recognise the importance of maintaining stability and confidence in relationships on board. The Minister does not appear to be aware that the essential difference is that we maintain a closed shop. I believe that the closed shop argument, endorsed by the Tory Government as an essential principle in a marine-working atmosphere, should be recognised by guaranteeing rights of access.
No obstacle should be put in the way of trade union recognition. We are not seeking the guarantee of the closed shop. ft may be thought that this is simply a matter of approaching companies and asking for trade union recognition. The good industrial relations that exist in seafaring are maintained by the closed shop. Where the closed shop is not recognised, as in the North Sea, there has been continual hostility to the rights of trade unions to organise. It took four or five years before the North Sea oil trade unions could obtain recognition of access.
This proposal applies in limited circumstances and is not satisfactory. At least, however, it is a step forward. The diving support operations refuse to accept trade union recognition. I give warning that a number of Opposition Members have got together with the North Sea oil trade unions, and that we shall do all that we can—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not go too specifically into North Sea matters. Will he relate his arguments to the clause under discussion?

Mr. Prescott: I am merely warning the Minister that when ships go out into the Pacific with men working on them we will find the same difficulties of access as we have experienced in the North Sea. I use the North Sea as an example. I shall not pursue the matter, but if it is in order for the Minister to use shipping as an example to support his case I should have thought that it was legitimate for me to say that the same principle does not work in another marine atmosphere where there is not a closed shop. That is the essential point that I have been trying to get over.
This difficulty of access is crucial. If the Minister accepts the amendment he will not have a great deal to swallow. He will merely be recognising that the trade unions have a role to play. I hope that he will demonstrate to the House that he does not intend to put obstacles in the way of the trade unions. No one suggests that he should force people to join trade unions, but I hope that he will not make it more difficult for trade unions to organise in this area. If he accepts this amendment, he will show that the Government believe in people's trade union rights and that they should be available whether people are working ashore or out in the mid-Pacific. That is the principle involved in the amendment, and I hope that the Minister will accept it.

Mr. MacGregor: This amendment is in some respects more modest in scope than the one that we discussed in Committee, which was to make trade union recognition compulsory in certain circumstances—a principle which was rejected by the Committee. However, the amendment is wider in other respects because the amendment we discussed in Committee applied only where clause 8 was operated, whereas this one applies to all deep sea mining. That is why I say that in other respects this amendment is a good deal wider.
While I was listening to the debate—and especially to the remarks of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), to the effect that the amendment had been moved to meet a point that I made in Committee—I began to wonder whether I had been right to hand him the peg on which to hang another opportunity to raise this issue.
I deal first with a very important point which the hon. Gentleman made at the beginning of his remarks, when he said that the amendment was modest. It is that it relates to a clause which places no obligation on the Secretary of State to take action. The relevant words are "may be". In response to that, I might point out that if there were never an attempt to introduce a provision along these lines it would be a mere cosmetic—a public relations exercise—which I imagine no Opposition Member would wish to see. Presumably, since he is trying to put the provision into the Bill, it is intended that it should be operated at some time and, therefore, that at some point there should be an attempt by some Secretary of State to impose statutory recognition. It is in that sense, therefore, that I consider the amendment.
In the interests of progress, because I know that there is a very long and onerous Bill to be dealt with later and because we have already debated this matter, I think that I can be brief. But I intend to be brief only because I can put succinctly the points which concern me about the amendment and the reason why I advise the House not to accept it.
The most important argument is whether there should be statutory recogntion. We must get this clear. I recognise, of course, that Opposition Members probably will not agree with me. There is a great difference of view between us. But we are not discussing putting obstacles in the way of trade unions operating on these vessels. We are not even discussing whether trade unions should be represented. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East said, because a closed shop has operated for so long it is extremely likely that there will be full trade union recognition. Here, we are discussing whether a provision for union recognition should appear in the statute as a requirement by law or should be a matter for negotiation between managements and their employees in the normal way. That is the key issue about union recognition in the amendment.
I have to tell the House that in the Government's view it is not appropriate to have statutory recognition, through legislation, in this case and in no other. There are no comparable provisions in other United Kingdom legislation, and Opposition Members have advanced only two reasons why we should make a special exception in this case.
One was the argument by the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) that many of these operations are taking place far away in the Pacific ocean. However, a lot of other shipping operations take place in


the Pacific ocean. I concede that by the nature of their work these ships will have to operate for some time without coming to port.
The other argument was that by the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas) that new technological implications here made statutory recognition desirable.
In my view neither argument is sufficiently strong to make the case that deep sea mining alone should involve statutory recognition and that the normal processes which apply in every other area of activity should not apply here.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East said very fairly that owners recognised the importance of trade unions and their representatives being concerned in safety and other matters, including disputes, in far-off shipping and that at their own expense they flew out union organisers to help deal with them. If that applies now it is obviously in the interests of managements to do the same with deep sea mining. Therefore, I do not think that the case for making this one exception in law has been made.
The other argument, which is not as important as that compelling one, relates to a matter which I raised in Committee. There could be problems in deciding what such a clause meant in terms of the representation of workers on foreign ships. It is clear that in a number of instances foreign ships will be involved in deep sea mining. At the moment they may be only American ships, because only American ships are available to carry out the operations. But that may change over a period.
Foreign ships will clearly be involved. However, this is not the sort of question that we would expect to regulate on board a foreign ship. There is a difficulty about the principle, as we would not wish to encourage foreign Governments to intervene in such matters on British vessels.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: This might be a suitable time to ask the Minister what discussions took place between the United Kingdom Government and the other Governments prior to their legislation.

Mr. MacGregor: It had been my intention to deal with that later but since the right hon. Gentleman has raised the matter I shall deal with it now.
The joint discussions which have taken place so far on deep sea mining have been in what has been discribed as the "like-minded group", just as the Group of 77 discussed various matters affecting what they regarded as their common interests. That is quite a normal process in these convention negotiations. That is where the joint discussions have been taking place so far, and the question of trade union recognition or statutory recognition was never discussed in that forum.
I come back to the point that I was trying to make when the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) intervened. He made the point that he would now be discussing with Ministers the wider questions of foreign vessels, and so on. However, this Bill, dealing with only one area of shipping activities, is not appropriate for the insertion of that kind of much wider issue, bearing in mind that so many other considerations are involved in it.

Mr. Prescott: Is the Minister saying that if the Americans, who have a condition about trade union recognition on their ships, were to operate in our area, with our licences and with trade union recognition, we should

recognise the trade union rights on board that ship, but that if they chartered a British ship in a bare-boat charter and put American workers on it, and they had a clause for trade union recognition, he would also have to recognise that?

Mr. MacGregor: I am simply saying that we do not believe it to be right to impose statutory recognition in this Bill, because it does not operate in any other British legislation.
I make one brief remark about the very important matter of safety, which a number of right hon. and hon. Members raised. I recognise the force of all that they said in that respect. However, I feel that the Bill contains adequate provisions in a large number of clauses to deal with safety, health and welfare matters. I refer to clause 2, where it is a specific item of licence terms and conditions, to clause 6, where it is raised again in the variation and revocation of licences, to clause 11, on inspectors, to clause 12, on the regulations and orders, and to the schedule. The matter is raised in all those provisions to provide for the safety, health and welfare of persons employed in any licensed or ancillary operations.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: The Under-Secretary will know that an amendment stands in my name to provide that such a licence
shall include terms and conditions".
For various reasons, that amendment was not selected. As the Minister seems to be arguing in favour of that amendment, will he seek to introduce it at a later stage?

Mr. MacGregor: There is no later stage. I was coming to that matter. It seems right in our view that the discretion should be left to the Secretary of State, as in the Bill, and that he "may" introduce terms and conditions relating to all the items that are listed. We understand how important safety, health and welfare are, and the fact that they are mentioned so often in the Bill shows the importance that we attach to them. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that safety will be a major consideration in the licences.
One other matter was raised by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, who asked which Department would be responsible for dealing with these matters. Marine activities will continue to be covered by the Department of Trade, although specific matters that are allocated in the Bill to the Department of Industry, such as the appointment of inspectors, will be the responsibility of that Department. However, as I said in Committee, in looking to the people whom we shall appoint as inspectors we shall consider a wide range of experience and expertise, and clearly there will be co-ordination between Departments on this aspect for which the Department of Industry is responsible.
We could debate this issue for a considerable time, but because of what I have said, particularly about the principle of statutory recognition, as distinct from negotiations for trade union recognition between management and employees, I cannot recommend my hon. Friends to accept the amendment.

Dr. John Cunningham: I am sorry that the Under-Secretary takes that view. He is being used to propagate the Government's strong anti-union views. We have moved a considerable way in changing the amendment, and I thought that we had gone far enough to convince the Under-Secretary that it was worth accepting. I am sorry that he feels unable to do so.
The Under-Secretary should know—it is a matter to which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) drew his attention—that many unions have a large interest in the matter. We are not just talking about one or even two unions, but about BALPA, the NUS, the MNAOA, the ASTMS, the Radio and Electronic Officers Union and the Transport and General Workers Union. All those unions are determined that the enormous problems that are faced by their members in offshore activities should be ended. They have formed an inter-union offshore committee to co-ordinate their activities and deal with the problems in the interests of their members. One way or another, they will seek to ensure that their members' interests, safety and welfare are safeguarded.
My hon. Friend also said that on a number of recent occasions British subjects who were employed—he mentioned the subject with special reference to rigs—have been summarily dismissed and moved off vessels because of the attitudes that have been taken by the Governments in whose waters the vessels were operating. It is a classic case of the importance of people in such circumstances having effective representation. It is an inescapable feature of seafaring life that people in such circumstances, often a long way from home, living in closed communities and having to work together, have problems that are often magnified out of all proportion. Those problems nevertheless have to be dealt with, and trade unions can make an important contribution in dealing with them.
There are many good reasons why the amendment should be accepted. It would not make union recognition obligatory. The Under-Secretary asked whether we expected it to be used. Some employers, of course, will concede the point from the beginning, as they have in the past. However, some will refuse access, as they have for many years, and they will refuse to recognise the legitimate rights of seafarers and others to be represented by trade unions. It is for that reason that we shall press the amendment. It is not just a matter of those concerned being a long way from home. The other matters that we have mentioned also arise. I feel as strongly as do my right hon. and hon. Friends about the matter, and we shall press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 112, Noes 180.

Division No. 261]
[5.45 pm


AYES


Allaun, Frank
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dixon, Donald


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Dormand, Jack


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Douglas, Dick


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Dubs, Alfred


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Eadie, Alex


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Eastham, Ken


Buchan, Norman
Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)


Campbell, Ian
English, Michael


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Evans, loan (Aberdare)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Ewing, Harry


Cocks, RtHon M. (B'stol S)
Faulds, Andrew


Coleman, Donald
Fitch, Alan


Cowans, Harry
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Craigen, J. M.
Foster, Derek


Crowther, J. S.
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
George, Bruce


Dalyell, Tam
Golding, John


Deakins, Eric
Graham, Ted





Grant, John (Islington C)
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Richardson, Jo


Hardy, Peter
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Home Robertson, John
Robertson, George


Homewood, William
Rooker, J. W.


Hooley, Frank
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Howell, Rt Hon D.
Sever, John


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Sheerman, Barry


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


John, Brynmor
Short, Mrs Renée


Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Kerr, Russell
Silverman, Julius


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Lamond, James
Snape, Peter


Leighton, Ronald
Spearing, Nigel


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Litherland, Robert
Stoddart, David


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Stott, Roger


McCartney, Hugh
Strang, Gavin


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


McElhone, Frank
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Tinn, James


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D caster)


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Welsh, Michael


Morton, George
White, Frank R.


Newens, Stanley
Whitehead, Phillip


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Whitlock, William


O'Neill, Martin
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Palmer, Arthur
Winnick, David


Park, George
Woolmer, Kenneth


Pavitt, Laurie



Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Prescott, John
Mr. James Hamilton and


Radice, Giles
Mr. Frank Haynes.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Dykes, Hugh


Alton, David
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Atkins, Robert(Preston N)
Eggar, Tim


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Fairgrieve, Russell


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Farr, John


Beith, A. J.
Fell, Anthony


Bendall, Vivian
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Forman, Nigel


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Freud, Clement


Berry, Hon Anthony
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Best, Keith
Glyn, Dr Alan


Biggs-Davison, John
Goodhew, Victor


Blackburn, John
Goodlad, Alastair


Body, Richard
Gow, Ian


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gray, Hamish


Braine, Sir Bernard
Greenway, Harry


Brinton, Tim
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Grist, Ian


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Gummer, John Selwyn


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hamilton, Hon A.


Buck, Antony
Hampson, Dr Keith


Budgen, Nick
Hannam, John


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Haselhurst, Alan


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Hawksley, Warren


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hayhoe, Barney


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Heddle, John


Chapman, Sydney
Henderson, Barry


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Clegg, Sir Walter
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Cockeram, Eric
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)


Colvin, Michael
Howells, Geraint


Cope, John
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Corrie, John
Hurd, Hon Douglas


Costain, Sir Albert
Jessel, Toby


Cranborne, Viscount
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Crouch, David
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Kershaw, Anthony


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Kimball, Marcus






King, Rt Hon Tom
Rathbone, Tim


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Renton, Tim


Knight, Mrs Jill
Rhodes James, Robert


Lamont, Norman
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Latham, Michael
Rossi, Hugh


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Rost, Peter


Lee, John
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Le Marchant, Spencer
Scott, Nicholas


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shepherd, Richard


Luce, Richard
Silvester, Fred


Lyell, Nicholas
Skeet, T. H. H.


Macfarlane, Neil
Speed, Keith


MacGregor, John
Speller, Tony


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Madel, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Major, John
Sproat, Iain


Marlow, Tony
Stainton, Keith


Mates, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mather, Carol
Steel, Rt Hon David


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stradling Thomas, J.


Mellor, David
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Tebbit, Norman


Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Moate, Roger
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Monro, Hector
Thornton, Malcolm


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Murphy, Christopher
Viggers, Peter


Myles, David
Waddington, David


Neale, Gerrard
Wainwright, R.(Colne V)


Neubert, Michael
Wakeham, John


Newton, Tony
Waldegrave, Hon William


Normanton, Tom
Ward, John


Onslow, Cranley
Warren, Kenneth


Osborn, John
Watson, John


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Wells, Bowen


Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)
Wheeler, John


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Whitney, Raymond


Parris, Matthew
Wickenden, Keith


Pattie, Geoffrey
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Pawsey, James
Wolfson, Mark


Percival, Sir Ian
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Pollock, Alexander



Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Tellers for the Noes:


Prior, Rt Hon James
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton


Proctor, K. Harvey
and Mr. Peter Brooke.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. MacGregor: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 3, line 39, at end add—
'( ) requiring any exploration or exploitation of the hard mineral resources of the licenced area to be diligently carried out;'.
I gave a commitment to consider an amendment following points made by the Opposition in Committee, and this amendment fulfils that commitment. We have referred briefly to some of the aspects of it in an earlier debate today, so I can be brief now.
The amendment is intended to prevent companies from sterilising large areas of the deep sea bed by obtaining licences for several sites but carrying out little or no development work on them. Including diligence requirements in the list of possible terms and conditions for licences underlines the importance attached to this principle and shows that the Government intend to license only serious applicants who can be expected to make good use of their licences.
As I said in Committee, it is appropriate for diligence to be a condition of licences themselves rather than simply a ground for revoking a licence under clause 6, as the

Opposition initially proposed. I recall that in Committee the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) indicated his assent and broad agreement to that.
The licence will spell out the precise obligations, such as a programme of expenditure, so that the licensee knows what conditions he has to meet. Since breach of any of the terms and conditions of licences is a ground for revoking a licence under clause 6, the point of the original Opposition amendment is met.
As drafted, this amendment reflects closely the similar provision in the American Act, which states that
The terms, conditions and restrictions of each licence and permit issued shall be designed to ensure diligent development.
I add one further point. I made it in Committee, but it would be as well to get it on record now. When drawing up the conditions we shall need to take account of the expected rates of development work and commercial recovery so that we do not impose ludicrous and unnecessary burdens on licensees. But with that point in mind—obviously, it is essential to have it in mind—I am happy to accept the arguments put forward in Committee by the Opposition.

6 pm

Dr. John Cunningham: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for the amendment. As he so clearly said, the Opposition raised this issue in Committee. I accept his points about the amendment's slight redrafting. It meets the point that we sought to cover, as it will prevent companies from sterilising large areas of the most attractive parts of the sea bed to prevent other countries or companies from exploiting them.
We are grateful to the Government for that concession and welcome the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed, No. 10, in page 3, line 47 at end insert—
'(4A) An exploration or an exploitation licence shall not be granted unless the person applying for the licence specifies two sites, one of which may be licensed, the other to be safeguarded for the use of such organisation as may be set up following international agreement to a Convention arising from the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea; if no such organisation is set up within twenty years of the passing of this Act the latter site may be offered back to the original applicant.'.—[Dr. John Cunningham.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 119, Noes 175.

Division No. 262]
[6.00 pm


AYES


Allaun, Frank
Deakins, Eric


Alton, David
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dixon, Donald


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Dormand, Jack


Beith, A. J.
Douglas, Dick


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Dubs, Alfred


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Eadie, Alex


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Eastham, Ken


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)


Buchan, Norman
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
English, Michael


Campbell, Ian
Evans, loan (Aberdare)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Ewing, Harry


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Faulds, Andrew


Cocks, RtHon M. (B'stol S)
Fitch, Alan


Cowans, Harry
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Craigen, J. M.
Foster, Derek


Crowther, J. S.
Freud, Clement


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Dalyell, Tam
George, Bruce






Golding, John
Radice, Giles


Graham, Ted
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Richardson, Jo


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Hardy, Peter
Robertson, George


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Rooker, J. W.


Haynes, Frank
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Sandelson, Neville


Home Robertson, John
Sever, John


Homewood, William
Sheerman, Barry


Hooley, Frank
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Howell, Rt Hon D.
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Howells, Geraint
Silverman, Julius


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Skinner, Dennis


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Snape, Peter


John, Brynmor
Spearing, Nigel


Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Kerr, Russell
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Stoddart, David


Lamond, James
Stott, Roger


Leighton, Ronald
Strang, Gavin


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Litherland, Robert
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Tinn, James


McElhone, Frank
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Wainwright, R.(Colne V)


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Welsh, Michael


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
White, Frank R.


Morton, George
Whitehead, Phillip


Newens, Stanley
Whitlock, William


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


O'Neill, Martin
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Winnick, David


Palmer, Arthur
Woolmer, Kenneth


Park, George



Pavitt, Laurie
Tellers for the Ayes:


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Mr. Hugh McCartney and


Prescott, John
Mr. Donald Coleman.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Atkins, Robert(Preston N)
Dykes, Hugh


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Eggar, Tim


Bendall, Vivian
Fairgrieve, Russell


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Farr, John


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Fell, Anthony


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Berry, Hon Anthony
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)


Best, Keith
Forman, Nigel


Biggs-Davison, John
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Blackburn, John
Glyn, Dr Alan


Braine, Sir Bernard
Goodhew, Victor


Brinton, Tim
Goodlad, Alastair


Brooke, Hon Peter
Gow, Ian


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Gray, Hamish


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Greenway, Harry


Bryan, Sir Paul
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)


Budgen, Nick
Grist, Ian


Butcher, John
Gummer, John Selwyn


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Hamilton, Hon A.


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Hannam, John


Chapman, Sydney
Haselhurst, Alan


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Hastings, Stephen


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hawksley, Warren


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hayhoe, Barney


Clegg, Sir Walter
Heddle, John


Cockeram, Eric
Henderson, Barry


Colvin, Michael
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Cope, John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Corrie, John
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Costain, Sir Albert
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldfd)


Cranborne, Viscount
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Crouch, David
Jessel, Toby


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine





Kershaw, Anthony
Rathbone, Tim


Kimball, Marcus
Renton, Tim


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rhodes James, Robert


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Knight, Mrs Jill
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Lamont, Norman
Rossi, Hugh


Latham, Michael
Rost, Peter


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lee, John
Scott, Nicholas


Le Marchant, Spencer
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shepherd, Richard


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Silvester, Fred


Luce, Richard
Skeet, T, H. H.


Lyell, Nicholas
Speed, Keith


Macfarlane, Neil
Speller, Tony


MacGregor, John
Spence, John


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Madel, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Major, John
Sproat, Iain


Marlow, Tony
Stainton, Keith


Mates, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mather, Carol
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stradling Thomas, J.


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mellor, David
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Thompson, Donald


Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Moate, Roger
Thornton, Malcolm


Monro, Hector
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Viggers, Peter


Murphy, Christopher
Waddington, David


Myles, David
Wakeham, John


Neale, Gerrard
Waldegrave, Hon William


Neubert, Michael
Ward, John


Normanton, Tom
Warren, Kenneth


Onslow, Cranley
Watson, John


Osborn, John
Wells, Bowen


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Wheeler, John


Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)
Whitney, Raymond


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Wickenden, Keith


Parris, Matthew
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Pattie, Geoffrey
Wolfson, Mark


Pawsey, James
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Percival, Sir Ian



Pollock, Alexander
Tellers for the Noes:


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Prior, Rt Hon James
Mr. Tony Newton


Proctor, K. Harvey

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 6

VARIATION AND REVOCATION OF LICENSES

Mr. MacGregor: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 5, line 22, at end add 'or
(iv) to avoid a conflict with any obligation of the United Kingdom arising out of any international agreement in force for the United Kingdom.'.
In Committee the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) withdrew an amendment on these general lines when I undertook to consider the matter to see whether it was possible to bring forward a suitable amendment on Report. I did not give any commitment, but I am happy now to be able to move the amendment to cover the concerns expressed in Committee. There the hon. Gentleman said that he was not wedded to his precise wording and that he would not object if I were to alter his amendment to bring it more closely into line with the American Act.
The amendment emphasises the Government's commitment to honour their international obligations, either present or future. As explained in Committee, the amendment is not necessary to deal with the UNCLOS convention when it comes into force, as there is separate provision in clause 18(3) to repeal the Bill when the convention arrangements come into force. However, the amendment underlines the important principle of avoiding conflicts with our international obligations, and I commend it to the House.

Dr. John Cunningham: On behalf of the Opposition, I welcome the Minister's brief but clear comments on the amendment. As he said, we raised the matter in Committee, and we are doubly grateful that two of our suggestions have been accepted by the Government. I, too, commend the amendment to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9

THE DEEP SEA MINING LEVY

Mr. Robert Sheldon: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 6, line 22 leave out 'or molybdenum' and insert
'molybdenum or any other metal'.
Clause 9 refers to the particular minerals that can be extracted from the deep sea bed as
manganese,—nickel, cobalt, copper, phosphorus or molybdenum".
The amendment seeks to add other metals to that list. It may be possible to do so by order as other metals of value are discovered in the process, but we should have the ability to permit the Secretary of State to add to the list of metals others which may subsequently be discovered.
Inherent in that is the way in which the cost of the mining process varies. I tabled an amendment to explore that matter, but it was not selected. However, there is an important aspect here, because the cost of the mining process may vary during the course of time. The cost of the mining process is fixed at 20 per cent. before transport, processing and marketing are added. Some say that that figure is wrong. The marine research project at Manchester university, described by the Daily Mail on 4 July as
among the world authorities in sea bed mining,
felt that the figure should be 25 per cent. We need flexibility to show that we are channelling into the fund the correct proportion of revenues.

Mr. MacGregor: Throughout our discussions on the Bill we have maintained consistency in reference to the elements contained within nodules. The definition of "hard mineral resources" in clause 1(6) makes it clear that the Bill is primarily concerned with the potentially valuable elements in nodules that it would be commercially attractive to exploit. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) will know that in any case the exploitation will not begin until 1988, so we are talking about a period that is a considerable time away; and if the convention comes into force we are likely to be talking about a very short period during which the levy

would apply. It is appropriate that the levy should be similarly confined to the elements that are likely to be produced in practice.
It is true that there are other elements in the nodules. I understand that there are 25 or more, but they are either present in such small quantities that they are not commercially exploitable—for example, silver, which represents only a minute proportion of the weight of a nodule—or are so low in value—for example, iron—that the cost of extraction would be disproportionately high. To require calculations of levy on each and every possible metal in nodules would complicate the arrangements unnecessarily. In practical terms, the amendment would be meaningless, as any elements other than those listed are present in nodules in such small traces that they are not commercially exploitable. Under subsection (3) they would be defined as being outside the scope of the levy, because they represent such small percentages of nodules.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: I understand that other elements may be present in small proportions and that the cost of extracting them is not worth while, but the processes may alter and, as they alter, by-products may automatically be thrown out and be available at no extra cost. That happens regularly in the chemical industry. I thought that the Minister might wish to deal with that matter.

Mr. MacGregor: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, this is a temporary provisions Bill. The levy arrangements will start operating much later in the lifetime of the legislation. It is intended that the levy provisions that will apply under the convention will replace any need for these arrangements. That is likely to be in the period about which the right hon. Gentleman is talking, if other elements ever become commercially exploitable. The American Act imposes a levy on the four major elements only, presumably for the reasons that I have advanced.
I cannot accept the amendment, and I urge the House to reject it.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Will the Minister deal with the cost of the mining process, which he says is 20 per cent. and which others think may be as high as 25 per cent.? There are no arrangements to deal with the matter if the figure should be wrong.

Mr. MacGregor: In the interest of progress, I simply point out that in Committee we debated at length the size of the levy. At this stage it is important to have arrangements for the levy similar to those in the American and German legislation. It is a slightly complicated matter, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are very much in line with the other two countries. If and when a convention comes into force the levy arrangements will be different, but at that stage the whole process will be different and the mining companies will have more protection for their operations in any case.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Dr. John Cunningham: The Bill has proved interesting for a number of reasons, not least that it has gone through the new procedure of the House which enabled the Committee to take evidence, albeit briefly. That enabled the Committee to move quickly to the major issues involved. People are in the habit of referring to the


Bill as a small measure. It is not small in the far-reaching nature of what it seeks to achieve. It is also not small in size, in that it has 18 clauses and a schedule.
Britain is committed within the United Nations to treating the deep oceans as the common heritage of mankind. A few may conclude—there may be more than a few—that if the Western industrial nations proceed as they are intent on proceeding, that phrase will ring a little hollow. The Bill is called the Deep Sea Mining (Temporary Provisions) Bill. There is nothing temporary about some of its provisions—for example, the issue of licences that will last for up to 20 years. We all know from our experience in the House that successive Administrations have introduced legislation which they say is of a temporary nature, pending some other more fundamental reorganisation—only to find that that legislation persists unchanged year after year.
There are a number of reasons why the Opposition have been extremely cautious about the measure. The British interest lies wholly with an international agreement in the United Nations discussions and the creation of an international regime. The many issues involved—defence, navigation, exclusive economic zones and so on—are as important as, if not more important, than the mining of deep sea nodules. It would be wrong to jeopardise the long list—I read them into the debate on Second Reading, and I shall not repeat them now—for what may be envisaged as a relatively small commercial gain.
The Government view is that the Bill is an interim measure and that nothing will be jeopardised. We are not convinced that that is so. We regret the introduction of the Bill and the way that we and other industrial nations are proceeding. The Group of 77 countries are less likely to reach accommodations with us in the face of the hard-driving commercial interests of the West, pressing ahead in the way that it is doing. One of the amendments accepted by the Government provides the ability to moderate and curtail the activities of mining companies and consortia. We welcome that, but we do not think it sufficient to convince the Group of 77 countries that we are intent upon ensuring that when an agreement is reached there will be something left for them to share. That goes to the heart of what is proposed in the issuing of licences under the legislation.
A major difference between the two sides of the House is whether what is being enacted will hinder progress towards the proposed international regime. We think that, on balance, it will jeopardise the chances of success. That is why we have always been opposed to the introduction of the Bill.
We have some objections of detail. We discussed some this afternoon and many more in Committee. We feel that the Government should not have proceeded with the measure. We hope that even now we may be proved wrong. It is fair to say that as we are hoping for an international agreement it is sensible to hope that our worst fears are not well-founded. We are not convinced by the arguments that have been advanced on that score. Therefore, we shall again record our opposition to the Bill and our unease about the timing and the nature of the proposals by voting against Third Reading tonight.

Mr. Skeet: This is a time for short speeches. It has been an agreeable series of debates. They have been contributed to by the Opposition, who have been helpful

both in Committee and otherwise. But for the Bill there would be no possibility of anything being done. Therefore, it is an extremely useful measure. I hope that the applications for licences will be available by early 1982, in which case the regulations will have to be made under clause 12. I hope that the Minister will say when the regulations will be published so that they can he investigated.
This is the beginning of the road, but much more has to be done. Together with the Ministers who are negotiating the convention, I hope that a conclusion will be reached—if not this year, early next year—and that it will be suitable for deep sea mining operations that will be beneficial to mankind and to those who will exploit the minerals. It is essential to have a preparatory commission to establish the regulations and the proceedings of the International Sea Bed Authority. There should be a preparatory investment protection, which is crucial to the viability of capital that has already been spent. The 13i11 represents the first stage in a whole series of proceedings.
I congratulate the Government on making Britain the third country to bring forward such legislation. I hope that other countries will follow suit. Under the early provisions of the legislation close contact will be maintained so that many of the difficulties that we foresaw in Committee will be ironed out to the satisfaction of all.

Mr. Robert Shelton: I wish to comment on the evidence—taking sessions in Committee and their value not only to Committee members but to others who take an interest in these matters. I came late to the Bill, for reasons that the House knows, and I benefited from reading the evidence-taking sittings as well as the Committee debates.
I wish to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) for his assiduity throughout the Bill. As he said, the oceans are common to all nations. They are for all to use and to participate in. Any exploitation should be for the benefit of all. The developing countries will see the measure as a new form of Western colonialism. Dislike that as we may, there is no question that we cannot exploit two-thirds of the world's surface without reminding those countries that that is a copy of what was done with their mineral resources on land. To obtain nickel and cobalt is a small matter in comparison with the grievous effects that the Bill will have on the attitudes of so many countries.
The Bill is called a temporary provision. My hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven was right to question how temporary is temporary. In the absence of agreement—and it will be difficult to reach agreement, as it always has been and always will be—the Bill could remain on the statute book for a long time. There are some basic flaws in it. The first and most important is that it should be an incentive to international agreement. It is clearly not that. It removes any urgency to reach agreement and, in certain circumstances, might make an agreement unattractive because certain people will have vested interests in the status quo because they have discovered their deposits. I do not understand the reason for urgency in introducing this measure.
The second flaw is that the levy will be based not on the actual outcome but on a theoretical assessment long in advance of any extraction of these minerals. The levy is based on a ratio of the cost of the mining process to the final cost of the minerals. It is said that it will be 1 to 5.
I do not see how the Government can conceivably say, in advance of all the technological changes that will inevitable take place, that that ratio will be fixed once and for all. They should at least have provided that it could have been varied by order. However, they are hooked on this ratio of 20 per cent., which is a fundamental flaw.
Two minor flaws relate to the amendments that were discussed earlier. One relates to safety, and the other to trade unions. Such amendments would have improved the Bill.
The most important consideration is why the Bill has come forward at this stage. What would have been the results had we waited a year or two years? International agreement would have been pursued by all the other countries. It is sad that the great risks that we are taking as a result of the Bill will be wholly out of proportion to the modest benefits that we shall achieve.
It is a shame that the Minister, for whom I have considerable affection for tasks that he has performed in the past, should bring this Bill forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven is quite right—we shall be voting against it.

Mr. Hooley: If there is one common ground between both sides it is the importance of the United Nations conference on the law of the sea. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that the successful conclusion of that conference and the signing of the treaty would be in the interests of the United Kindom. As my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) has already said, it covers a wide range of matters that are of basic interest to the United Kindom as a great maritime nation.
However, sea bed mining is not one of the United Kingdom's dominant interests. It involves very few jobs in the United Kingdom. I have heard no evidence at all—and I have read the evidence given to the Committee—that over the next two decades or more there is likely to be any shortage of the metals that are likely to be recovered from the sea bed. Cobalt is the only possible exception, but that could not be recovered without recovering all the other metals for which at present there are no markets.
The issue of sea bed mining has become one of the touchstones of good faith between the Third world and the Western countries. This was made clear in the evidence given to the Committee by Dr. Lowe, who quoted a statement by the Group of 77 which is worth repeating. He said:
Inasmuch as the unilateral laws are intended to confront the international community with a fait accompli, they are in breach of the principle of good faith in the conduct of negotiations, contrary to the procedure of concensus contained in a gentlemen's agreement, and seriously jeopardise the progress achieved so far in the conference, being prejudicial to the prospects of the early adoption of a comprehensive convention."—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 2 June 1981; c. 86.]
That is a clear and emphatic statement on behalf of 130 countries, and I am astonished that the Government should seek to fly in the face of that kind of considered judgment by bringing in a Bill of this nature.
This legislation is for the benefit of multinational companies. It is not for the benefit of the United Kingdom. It flies in the face of the general principle that underlines

the law of the sea negotiations. Even at this late stage, we are entitled to ask whether this will benefit the multinationals.
The matter was put quite wittily in Committee when it was asked:
Do you expect the writ of Her Majesty's High Court of Justice to operate in the mid-Pacific?"—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 4 June 1981; c. 121.]
The short answer to that must be "No". The matter was put more cogently by Mr. Roderick Ogley, of the University of Sussex, about whether the Bill will help the countries that it purports to help. He said:
Either it purports to exclude nationals of all other states from each area licensed, in which case it infringes on their 'freedom of the seas'; or it does not, in which case it offers the licensee no assurance that he will enjoy the right to exploit the site awarded him. In principle this difficulty can be lessened, but by no means eliminated, if several states enact similar legislation and recognise each other's claims; any state outside this system would be perfectly entitled to dispute such claims" .—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 4 June 1981; c. 148.]
He went on to say that, by contrast, an internationally recognised regime would give the assurance necessary to the companies to operate safely and lawfully on the high seas.
Another matter arises. What happens if the Third world countries, or some group of them, feeling justifiably aggrieved, take the matter to the International Court of Justice? That is feasible, and it was also raised in Committee. Dr. Lowe said:
In the most recent Group of 77 statement of legal position, of which I have a copy, it specifically raises the possibility of taking action before the International Court of Justice, in terms either of an advisory opinion or of contentious litigation against one or more of the reciprocating States. We in this country have as good a record as anyone of complying with international obligations and I should be surprised if, in the face of pending litigation before the International Court, we breezed ahead and proceeded to implement and act under legislation of this kind."—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 2 June 1981; c. 88.]
What are the consequences of that? Let us suppose that the matter is taken to the International Court. That could impose a delay of several years before any judgment was given, as a result of which no advantage whatever would have been gained by passing this legislation in such a hurry. It would have been much wiser had the Government pressed ahead with achieving an agreement in the United Nations conference on the law of the sea rather than jeopardising that agreement by proceeding with this kind of legislation and ganging up with the West Germans and the Americans.
The most unfortunate aspect of this business has been what were until recently the secret discussions and agreements between the eight so-called "like-minded States"—a group of Western industrial countries which decided to come to their own private agreement on deep sea mining and are now proceeding to put it into effect by individual legislation. It was first done by the Americans, followed by the Germans and now ourselves. Presumably, the French and Italians will do so in due course.
The Government's record vis-a-vis the Third world has not been brilliant during the past two years. There was our disruptive attitude in the global negotiations. There have been the cuts in overseas aid and action on overseas students' fees. We now have this legislation, designed to confer on British-based and other multinationals a special privileged position in relation to the enormous mineral resources on the sea bed. I cannot believe that that attitude,


compounded by the Bill, will in any way enhance the standing and good name of the United Kingdom in the rest of the world.

Mr. MacGregor: I agree with the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) that it has been interesting to participate in the new Special Standing Committee procedure. It enabled us to give the Bill an extremely detailed examination and full consideration, which in turn enables me to be comparatively brief.
As I and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office made clear, the Bill is an interim measure to bridge the inevitable gap before an agreed law of the sea convention may enter into force. It is a measure designed to provide a framework that will enable United Kingdom companies to continue their development work during this period of uncertainty.
The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) asked why the Bill had been introduced at this stage and whether there was a degree of urgency. As he knows, two other countries have passed their own legislation, which will enable the interim operations, the continuing research and development work and possibly some of the commercial exploitation work to take place under their licences unless we take steps, through our own licences, to give British mining companies the opportunity.
The evidence given to us by the mining companies during the special procedure sittings showed that British interests are at stake and that advantages are to be gained for Britain from giving them the opportunity to operate under United Kingdom licensing legislation. That is the reason for introducing the Bill at this time. I must stress to the House that that does not diminish our commitment to the idea of an international convention. It springs from our belief that international regulations provide the desirable framework for the industry over the longer term.
We heard the companies express their views in the Special Standing Committee. They stated clearly that they regard an acceptable international regime as the best basis for the commercial development of the deep sea mining industry. The Government remain determined to achieve a satisfactory outcome to UNCLOS. The Bill seeks to encourage United Kingdom companies that are already active in this new industry to continue with their development work.
Bearing in mind some of the remarks that have been made by Labour Members about multinational companies, it is worth saying that under the Bill there will be no sudden bonanza. Principally, we can expect continued dogged research work to tackle many major technological problems that remain on the road to commercial development of the deep sea bed. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) was right to say that this is only the beginning of the road.
The Bill includes all the necessary provisions and conditions to deal with commercial production. The provisions and conditions are necessary, as we do not know at this stage precisely how long the Bill will have to remain on the statute book or how fast the industry will develop. No commercial operations can start before 1988. We hope that by that time an acceptable international law of the sea regime will be in force, or will be about to enter into force, for the United Kingdom.
By encouraging companies to continue their exploration and development work the Bill will benefit all those who wish to see the international regime get off to a prompt start once all the details have been agreed. It will help to ensure that there is a deep sea mining industry in existence when the international framework comes into operation. It will contribute towards the speedy establishment of an international mining operation by encouraging the development of technology that may he transferred under the terms of the convention. If there is commercial production under the Bill it will contribute funds to the international authority when it is set up The Bill should therefore be seen as a positive measure in bringing the international community closer to the shared goal of fair exploitation of sea bed mineral resources
Reference has been made to the attitudes of the developing countries to this form of national legislation. It has been suggested that we are threatening the the future progress of the law of the sea conference by enacting the Bill. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley), in what I thought was a gross exaggeration, said that the very fact that we were likely to give the Bill a Third Reading was imperilling the treaty. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office said on Second Reading, there is no evidence that the passage of the American and German deep sea mining laws have soured negotiations.
The evidence that we have from, for example, agreements reached within the conference about the topics that should be discussed demonstrates a much more positive attitude among the developing countries. They have agreed that the treatment to be accorded to the preparatory investments made before the convention enters into force should be included on the agenda for the tenth session. Although negotiations have been delayed the Group of 77 have indicated that they would be willing to discuss the matter once the attitude of the United States had been clarified. There is no reason stemming from this measure why we should not continue to work together with our friends in the international community to secure acceptable arrangements for deep sea mining both in the immediate and interim future and in the longer term.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford has been most helpful during our deliberations. We have all benefited from his experience. In the autumn we hope to start the process of making regulations to help the companies in preparing their applications. We hope that it will be possible to receive applications in January 1982, although, as my hon. Friend will recognise, there will inevitably be some delays before the issue of licences takes place.
I say to the hon. Member for Whitehaven that on occasions in Committee I thought that we were taking part in a duet. I am grateful for the constructive and reasonable way in which he and his hon. Friends participated in our proceedings in Committee, especially in the new proceedings. It is because of that approach and the reasonable arguments that they have advanced that I have been able to introduce two amendments that embrace their arguments in Committee. I recognise that the Opposition have misgivings about parts of the Bill.
I trust that the Bill will prove a useful basis for developments during the interim, pending internationally agreed regulations. I hope that the House will now agree to its being given a Third Reading.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divide: Ayes 175, Noes 109.

Division No. 263]
[6.45 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Alton, David
Hurd, Hon Douglas


Atkins, Robert(Preston N)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Beith, A. J.
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Bendall, Vivian
Kimball, Sir Marcus


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Knight, Mrs Jill


Berry, Hon Anthony
Lamont, Norman


Best, Keith
Latham, Michael


Biggs-Davison, John
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Blackburn, John
Lee, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Le Marchant, Spencer


Braine, Sir Bernard
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Brinton, Tim
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Luce, Richard


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Lyell, Nicholas


Bryan, Sir Paul
Macfarlane, Neil


Budgen, Nick
MacGregor, John


Butcher, John
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Madel, David


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Major, John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Marlow, Tony


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n )
Mates, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Mather, Carol


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Clegg, Sir Walter
Mellor, David


Cockeram, Eric
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Colvin, Michael
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Cope, John
Moate, Roger


Corrie, John
Monro, Hector


Costain, Sir Albert
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Cranborne, Viscount
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Crouch, David
Murphy, Christopher


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Myles, David


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Neale, Gerrard


Dykes, Hugh
Neubert, Michael


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Newton, Tony


Eggar, Tim
Normanton, Tom


Fairgrieve, Russell
Onslow, Cranley


Farr, John
Osborn, John


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Forman, Nigel
Parris, Matthew


Freud, Clement
Pattie, Geoffrey


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Pawsey, James


Glyn, Dr Alan
Percival, Sir Ian


Goodlad, Alastair
Pollock, Alexander


Gow, Ian
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Gray, Hamish
Proctor, K. Harvey


Greenway, Harry
Rathbone, Tim


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Rhodes James, Robert


Grist, Ian
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Gummer, John Selwyn
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Hamilton, Hon A.
Rossi, Hugh


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Rost, Peter


Hampson, Dr Keith
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Hannam, John
Sandelson, Neville


Haselhurst, Alan
Scott, Nicholas


Hawksley, Warren
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Heddle, John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Henderson, Barry
Shepherd, Richard


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Speed, Keith


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Speller, Tony


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'Idf'd)
Spence, John


Howells, Geraint
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)





Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wainwright, R.(colne v)


Sproat, Iain
Waldegrave, Hon William


Stainton, Keith
Wall, Patrick


Stanbrook, Ivor
Ward, John


Steel, Rt Hon David
Warren, Kenneth


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Watson, John


Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)
Wells, Bowen


Stradling Thomas, J.
Wheeler, John


Tebbit, Norman
Wickenden, Keith


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Wolfson, Mark


Thornton, Malcolm
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Townend, John (Bridlington)



Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Trippier, David
Donald Thompson and


Viggers, Peter
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.


Waddington, David




NOES


Allaun, Frank
John, Brynmor


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Kerr, Russell


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Lamond, James


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Leighton, Ronald


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Buchan, Norman
Litherland, Robert


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
McCartney, Hugh


Campbell, Ian
McElhone, Frank


Campbell-Savours, Dale
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Coleman, Donald
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Cowans, Harry
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Craigen, J. M.
O'Neill, Martin


Crowther, J. S.
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Cryer, Bob
Palmer, Arthur


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Park, George


Dalyell, Tam
Pavitt, Laurie


Deakins, Eric
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Prescott, John


Dixon, Donald
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Dormand, Jack
Richardson, Jo


Douglas, Dick
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dubs, Alfred
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Dunn, James A.
Robertson, George


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Rooker, J. W.


Eadie, Alex
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Eastham, Ken
Sever, John


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
Sheerman, Barry


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


English, Michael
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Skinner, Dennis


Ewing, Harry
Snape, Peter


Faulds, Andrew
Spearing, Nigel


Fitch, Alan
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Stoddart, David


Foster, Derek
Stott, Roger


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Strang, Gavin


George, Bruce
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Golding, John
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Graham, Ted
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Welsh, Michael


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
White, Frank R.


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Whitehead, Phillip


Hardy, Peter
Whitlock, William


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Haynes, Frank
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Winnick, David


Home Robertson, John
Woolmer, Kenneth


Homewood, William


Hooley, Frank
Tellers for the Noes:


Howell, Rt Hon D.
Mr. George Morton and


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Mr. James Tinn.


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Question accordongly agreed to.

Bill read Third time and passed, with amendments.

Wildlife and Countryside Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I appreciate that Mr. Speaker had a difficult task in drawing up his selection of amendments, and I do not want to question that in any way, but I am concerned that amendments Nos. 243, 269, 270 and 272, all of which deal with airguns, their misuse and the amount of harm and injury that they inflict on wild animals, have not been selected. I wonder whether there is any possibility of the matter being reconsidered so that we can debate that issue. I realise that the matter was considered fully in Committee, but I am sure that you appreciate that there is strong feeling in the country about the misuse of air weapons. If it is not possible to debate the matter tonight, I hope that the Government will bring forward legislation soon to make regulations to stop not only the misuse of such air weapons against animals, but their many other misuses.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): All those matters have been carefully considered by Mr. Speaker, and there is no possibility of questioning his selection.

Ordered,
That the Wildlife and Countryside Bill, as amended, be considered in the following order, namely, new Clauses relating to Part I; Amendments relating to Clauses 1 to 8; Schedules 1 to 4; Clauses 9 and 10; Schedule 5; Clause 11; Schedule 6; Clause 12; Schedule 7; Clause 13; Schedule 8; Clause 14; Schedule 9; Clause 15; Schedule 10; Clauses 16 to 27; new Schedules relating to Part I; new Clauses relating to Part II; Amendments relating to Clauses 28 to 32 Schedule 11; Clauses 33 to 44; Schedule 12; Clauses 45 to 47; new Schedules relating to Part II; new Clauses relating to Part III; Amendments relating to Clause 48; Schedule 13; Clause 49; Schedule 14; Clauses 50 to 57; Schedule 15; Clauses 58 to 60; new Schedules relating to Part III; other new Clauses: Amendments relating to Clauses 61 to 68; other new Schedules; Amendments relating to Schedule 16.—[Mr. Monro.]

New Clause 40

PROTECTION OF CERTAIN MAMMALS

'Schedule 7, which amends the law relating to the protection of certain mammals, shall have effecef—[Mr. Monro.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Hector Monro): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take the following:
New clause 1—Extension of occupier's rights to use firearms
New clause 43—Sheep worrying
Government amendments Nos. 197 to 205, 206 to 212, amendment No. 139, in the title, line 5, after 'animals', insert
'to amend the law relating to the killing of ground game;'
and Government amendment No. 213.

Mr. Mortro: My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr Farr) moved amendments in Committee to rectify an anomaly arising from the interpretation of the Ground Game Act 1880—that while owners of land can shoot rabbits and hares at night, occupiers cannot. As, for

the most part, such non-owning occupiers are tenant farmers who wish to protect their crops, the anomaly is considered to be unjust and in need of remedy. I therefore undertook to see whether an amendment could be drafted to meet the wishes of my hon. Friend and the implications of the Private Member's Bill sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Hooson).
New Clause 40 and amendment No. 197 are paving amendments. The first part of amendment No. 198 gives occupiers in England and Wales the right to shoot ground game at night if they have the written authority of one of the persons with a similar right. That means the owner or the shooting tenant. We have essentially adopted the contents of the Ground Game Bill 1980, sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor, which completed its Commons passage last Session. However, we are providing also for delegation of the right to shoot to a person under section 1 of the 1880 Act, for example, an employee or a member of his household resident on his land. This brings the position at night into line with that during the day. I believe that the amendment meets the wishes of my hon. Friends.
The second part of amendment No. 198 provides for Scotland. At present, no person in Scotland may shoot ground game at night. There is no difference in circumstance which justifies a difference of the degree between England and Wales and Scotland. Accordingly, amendment No. 198 not only gives occupiers, with permission, the right to shoot but gives such rights to the owner of the shooting or a person who has been granted those rights, whether exclusively or otherwise.
I now turn to the third part of amendment No. 198. There was overwhelming support in Committee for the inclusion of a provision aimed at preventing sheep-worrying to supplement what is already provided in the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 and the Animals Act 1971. We indicated in Committee that we accepted in principle new clause 46 and amendments (d) and (e) thereto and would consider also amendment (a), which sought to cover all types of livestock and not only sheep and lambs.
7 pm
The available statistics indicate that the numbers of other types of livestock killed or injured by dogs is much less than those of sheep, and my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Williams), who I understand was representing the views of the National Farmers Union on this point, urged that the provisions which we were debating should only cover sheep. We thought carefully about that, and we agree. We have therefore restricted the amendment to that type of livestock.
In agreeing to table an amendment we were aware that this was likely to present difficult drafting problems, and so it proved, but I believe that the amendment implements all the essential features of the amendments which were supported in Committee.
There was clearly a need, as indicated in Committee by amendment (d), to extend the exemption applicable to persons on public rights of way to other ways used by the public, and our amendment deals with that problem by omitting any reference to ways of any sort.
We have defined "at large" in relation to dogs in fields to mean
not on a lead or otherwise under close control".


We recognise that the meaning of those last three words cannot be precisely defined, but the phrase is evidently acceptable to the major interests which support the tightening-up of the sheep-worrying legislation, and I believe that the implications will generally be clear. There was some comment in the farming press about sheep dogs, which would, of course, be perfectly entitled to be there under the control of a shepherd or the owner of the sheep.
In his Committee amendment (e), my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough raised a point about the word "lawful". He sought to ensure that dogs being used in connection with poaching activities should not be included within the proposed exception for dogs or hounds being used for sporting purposes. In our amendment the relevant exemption refers to "a working gun dog", and, as poaching is in itself an illegal activity for which the culprits can be prosecuted, it is not considered necessary to cover this point in the amendment.
There are two provisions in the existing 1953 Act, as amended, which it may be useful for me to draw to hon. Members' attention. First, the maximum penalty is £200, which is identical with that proposed in Committee in new clause 46; and, as regards enforcement, it is provided in section 2 that no proceedings shall be brought except by the police, the occupier of the land or the owner of the livestock in question.
As hon. Members will realise, I have not gone into the horrors of sheep-worrying. We expressed our abhorrence in Committee, when we made it clear that we wished to do everything possible to stop attacks on sheep and lambs by wild dogs or dogs behaving intolerably.
The proposed changes not only clarify the issue of ground game and the change in the law. They also, to the best of our ability, fulfil all the undertakings that we gave in Committee about sheep-worrying, which is unacceptable to everyone.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I do not wish to deal with the issue of ground game but I welcome the Government's proposals on sheep-worrying. In Committee I strongly urged that not only was the damage to sheep horrific but that on the urban fringes the damage was equally bad to other livestock. Anyone who has seen ponies or cattle worried or injured will be disappointed that the Government have not included other animals.
The Minister referred to the 1953 legislation. How many prosecutions have there recently been under that legislation? Although the wording in my new clause 43 is slightly wrong—it should refer to section 1(5) of the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act—it would give the Minister wide powers to exempt various areas from the legislation. I gather from an answer that I had today from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that although the exemption has been possible since 1953 the section has never been used, so there does not seem any point in retaining it, unless the Minister intends to use it as a result of the new clause. The section is so imprecisely worded that it would be much better to drop it from the legislation, which would, I believe, strengthen the Government's proposals.
I regret that the Government are applying the provisions only to sheep-worrying and not to the worrying of all livestock, but, with my question about new clause 43, I support the Government's proposals.

Mr. John Farr: I thank the Minister for what he said. I am grateful to him for taking up my suggestion, and I thank him, too, for improving upon it.
I believe that the amendment will cause general satisfaction. I am glad to see from my hon. Friend's letter to me today that the legislation will apply to England, Wales and Scotland. There is a need for a change in the law. The matter was the subject of a Private Member's Bill that completed all its stages in this place. On behalf of those who sponsored that Bill, I thank my hon. Friend.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I support the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett). I believe that the scope of the proposal should be wider. For instance, a great deal of harm can be done if a field of heifers is chased by dogs. For the same reason as my hon. Friend, I would not dream of pressing my objection, but it should be expressed. We should demonstrate at an early stage in our consideration of the Bill on Report that we wish to be co-operative. I hope that the co-operation shown by my hon. Friend will be reflected in the Minister's decisions as we proceed with the other amendments, including several in my name.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the way that he has taken on board the points raised in Committee on the important question of sheep-worrying. A number of interesting views were expressed, some of which looked fairly irreconcilable, but the new clause covers the points and appears to find considerable favour with the farming industry. It gives me great pleasure to see this enlightened step being taken.

Mr. Denis Howell: I shall be brief, as we wish to make progress.
Hon. Members who heroically battled through 100 hours in Committee expected the Bill to start at 3.30 pm for us to have proper time to debate it, so it is appropriate that the first subject should be night shooting. My only regret is that we are not dealing with the night shooting of birds, which we discussed at length in Committee and about which on the Labour Benches we feel rather more strongly than we do about the matter pressed on the Government by the hon. Members for Harborough (Mr. Farr). However, we very much appreciate what the Government have done in regard to sheep-worrying. I hope that the House can resolve the matter speedily.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 4

REPORTS ON GREY SEAL MANAGEMENT

'It shall be a duty of the Natural Environment Research Council and the Nature Conservancy Council to make an annual report to the Secretary of State for Scotland and to the Secretary of State for the Environment on the management of grey seals in and around coastal waters.'.—[Mr. Dalyell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I beg to move, That the clause be read the Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take new clause 41—Amendment to Conservation of Seals Act 1970.

Mr. Dalyell: The new clause relates to the emotional subject of seal culling and the hope that there could be an annual report involving both the Natural Environment


Research Council and the Nature Conservancy Council. I welcome what is basically an unemotional occasion to discuss this subject because, whether we like it or not, it will be with us again this autumn, as it has been before, although not only north of the border. We see pictures of beautiful, wide-eyed, cuddly seal pups peering from the front pages of many Sunday newspapers and indeed daily newspapers.
Seal culling involves a degree of cruelty which to many people is odious. I shall be forgiven for reminding the House that even in 1976 the wife of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), who was then Prime Minister, made no secret of the fact that she was constantly asking her husband "What are you going to do about the seals?" In 1978 some of us rebelled strongly and effectively against our own Government on this issue. The issue was raised not only with the Secretaries of State for the Environment and Scotland but with No. 10 Downing Street, and it took up a great deal of the Prime Minister's time. I therefore make no apology for raising this subject.
Whatever the good will of successive Governments—I am sure that the Minister and his colleagues are as concerned about the cruelty involved in seal culling as I or any other Opposition Member—the culling is done by people who are paid on a headage basis—that is, they are paid according to the number of pups that they put to death. That is deeply unsatisfactory. It should not be done on a commercial basis of that kind, if at all.
The question then arises whether culling should take place. There are those—the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir M. Kimball) is one—who argue that culling is necessary because of the amount of fish that seals are said to consume. It became clear in 1978—and clearer still when, as a member of the then European Parliament, I asked the late Finn Olav Gundelach, who at that time was Commissioner for fisheries as well as agriculture, to institute a study of the grey seal on a North Sea riparian basis, because more than 60 per cent. of grey seals are in Scottish waters—that there was very little hard scientific evidence that grey seals consumed as much fish, particularly cod, as was supposed. It was argued that they consumed much fish that was not edible, or was not generally eaten by human beings.
Therefore, before we embark on any further culling on this scale, for heaven's sake let us have some hard scientific evidence that it is necessary. That is why this modest provision seeks to bring the NCC into the decision-making. The NCC should have a special role. One of the anomalies of the Conservation of Seals Act 1970 is that that organisation has not been brought in in the same way as NERC. We therefore request that the NCC should be brought in with NERC.
Had we been in Committee I should have made a far longer speech and my notes would have been voluminous. In view of the understanding that we have, however, I end a noteless truncated speech with this thought. If culling is necessary, let us heed the argument put forward by the late Sir Frank Fraser Darling that it should not be done when the pups are young. If there must be culling, let it be done either at sea or when the bulls or the mother seals come ashore.
7.15 pm
I wish to register one further point, as the hon. Member for Gainsborough may well refer to it. I am aware, from Dr. Morton Boyd and others who have made a lifetime

study of this subject that if one interferes with the hierarchy of bull seals coming ashore, be it on North Rona or other islands, it may affect the whole mating process. The best way to control the number of seals may therefore be a constant human presence—a disturbing presence, as it were—throughout the mating season on those islands, which are central to the breeding process. I am not saying that this should be done, but it would be a better alternative than the unsatisfactory, odious and extremely cruel massacre which currently takes place and which arouses the emotions not only of do-gooders and animal lovers throughout the country but of the more hard-headed among us.
I do not suggest that the new clause is any kind of cure-all. No Opposition Member thinks that. We believe that it is a small, sensible step towards tackling a very sensitive problem. We therefore plead with the Government to accept this sensible, if modest, step forward.

Sir Marcus Kimball: I find that any information that I require on grey seals comes from the sea mammal research unit, which reports to the Natural Environment Research Council. As the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) knows, there is a unit in Cambridge which is part of that and which reports on the seal problem. It is from there that I get my information when dealing with this very tricky subject.
I merely add that I hope that the Government will take note of what the hon. Member for West Lothian said about the right way to control seals. The new breeding colonies in danger of being established round our coasts are the areas which must be watched. There has been an explosion in the seal population round the Scottish coast from 25,000 to an estimated 67,000 last year. Some people believe—and I am certainly one of them—that for every tonne of fish that we eat the seals eat five tonnes. l accept that that figure may be disputed, but that is certainly what our netsmen believe. I believe that the way to control seals is at the mating time, not the breeding time.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I support new clause 4 and what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), but I believe that in many ways new clause 41 deals with the problem more effectively. New clause 4 merely seeks a further report, whereas new clause 41 goes to the existing legislation and draws attention to one of the loopholes in it.
Unfortunately, when it is decided that a cull should take place, the argument tends to take place in the popular press, as my hon. Friend pointed out, in emotional terns and with pictures showing the brutality of the culling, and the fishermen's fears about lost catches are set against those pictures. At such times, there is often a lack of clear information. It seems reasonable to request that, if a licence is to be granted for culling to take place, the information on which the decision to grant the licence was taken should be published in full so that anybody may challenge that information, so that there can be a proper informed debate about it and so that the debate does not take place in the emotional terms of the pictures of the brutality and the hardship stories of the fishermen.
New clause 41 would involve accurate information being made available, so that those who are informed can, if necessary, put forward counter arguments to the Minister and explain their case on a scientific basis. At the moment we have the feeling that the Minister thinks that


the granting of a licence is a good thing. There is no clear statement as to the basis of it. People often feel that it is based not on a clear scientific analysis but on lobbying by one group or another. Over the years we have not had good management, because there has been lobbying by one faction or another rather than scientific information.
I support new clause 4, but I hope that the Minister will say that he will accept new clause 41.

Mr. Monro: I appreciate the manner in which the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) introduced new clause 4. In many ways I am sympathetic to what he is trying to achieve. I know, too, the strength of feeling that exists among many people—including myself—who love animals, as to the method which has been claimed to be the most efficient when seal stocks have to be reduced.
The last cull was in 1977, when significantly fewer than the number of seals estimated were killed. In 1978 the cull was abandoned because of the strong opposition from Greenpeace and other organisations. Since then no cull has been organised. No decision has been taken this year, so it is four years since there has been a seal cull.
The argument for culling adult seals rests primarily on the estimated impact that they make on the fish stocks for which man is a competitor. The argument is well documented by a report of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, backed by salmon netsmen, and others, who point to physical damage to nets and the loss of fish.
Others feel that the fisheries case—depending, as it does, on the estimation of a number of factors—is not proven, and they are anxious that the grey seal population should not be put at risk. Others, again, are simply opposed to seeing seals killed in any circumstances. I do not want to deal with the merits of legitimate points of view but I should like to explain the consultation arrangements that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has introduced.

Mr. Dalyell: The St. Andrew Animal Fund and its secretary, Clive Hollands, argue that the pressure comes from the salmon fisheries. The Minister referred to the salmon aspect of the matter. Is the pressure coining from the salmon fisheries or is it coming from the white fish interests?

Mr. Monro: I should not like to give a definite answer or indicate a balance on one side or the other. It is only right to accept that there is opposition by the fishing interests concerning the number of seals round our coasts.
In 1979 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced that he intended to set up a consultation process involving not only the Government, NCC and NERC officials, but representatives of fishing and conservation interests. The Secretary of State takes into full account the points made in these discussions before making his final decision on whether management action is called for.
In addition, the Natural Environment Research Council is already statutorily obliged, under the Conservation of Seals Act 1970, to give the Secretary of State for Scotland and, in respect of England and Wales, the Home Secretary scientific advice on matters related to the management of the seal population. Also, under the 1970 Act, my right hon. Friends have to consult NERC before issuing any

licence to kill seals in the close season. Moreover, the NCC has a statutory role in advising him with particular reference to any proposed licensed culling within nature reserves or sites of special scientific interest. Both councils are, of course, free to make a direct approach if they feel it appropriate.
The amalgam of statutory and administrative procedures—together with the normal checks and balances of pressure groups seeking to influence the Secretaries of States' decision on the management of the grey seal population—appears to give a comprehensive range of advice. An additional statutory duty on the NCC and the NERC to make an annual report to the Secretary of State for Scotland and to the Home Secretary would, I feel, be an unnecessary embellishment.
The culling of grey seals raises issues which can be discussed at various levels. At the end of the day, however, the decision is rightly one for the responsible Ministers—the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Home Secretary for England and Wales. I am not sure that to ask the two councils, acting in concert—and bearing in mind their particular statutory duties—to make an annual report to the Secretary of State and the Home Secretary is necessary. I assure the House that there is no question of this Government—or, I hope, any other—taking action which would put the future of the grey seal population at risk.
The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) called for a report to be published giving the reasons for a cull. As I said, the Secretary of State for Scotland consults widely before issuing licences for seal culls. Whenever a licence is issued, he issues a press release explaining the reason for his decision. I understand the concern expressed, but both the NERC and the NCC consult the Secretary of State, as suggested in the hon. Gentleman's new clause. The Secretary of State, in his press release, already sets out his decision and the reasons for it, as proposed in the new clause.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: But such a press release is basically aimed at the press, is it not, rather than at the pressure groups? If the pressure groups are to put effective information before the Minister, they must have the same information as the Minister on which to argue their case. I should have thought that it would help the Minister to publish all the information on which he bases his decision, so that anyone who disagrees with him can argue on the central point on which there is disagreement rather than have to build up an emotional case because the information is not available. I do not feel that the Minister can fairly say that a press release is an adequate way in which to inform the pressure groups on how the Secretary of State comes to an important decision. I hope, therefore, that he will give consideration to my new clause.

Mr. Monro: As I said earlier, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has set up the consultation process which brings together the NCC and the NERC and the fishing and conservation interests. They will be looking at the same papers and sitting round the table discussing the problem. They will not be left out in the cold. The consultations that my right hon. Friend has announced are new. They will give all the information that it is reasonable for anyone to have at the meetings. It will be appreciated that some information is confidential to the Government and that the Ministers will have to make and stand by the decision.
I hope that the hon. Member for Stockport, North will bear in mind what I have said about the special consultations that will take place before any decision is taken about a cull. No decision has been taken for 1981 and, as he knows, there was no decision to cull in 1979 or 1980.
The situation has changed and there is a greater appreciation of the concern of many people about the culling of seals. The method of culling has caused more concern than anything else. All that is much more apparent and will be taken into account by the Secretary of State in deciding whether a cull is necessary.
Everything suggested in the new clauses will come about. An announcement will be made and consultations will take place. The spirit of the new clauses is accepted, but we do not believe that it is necessary to provide a statutory obligation.

Mr. Denis Howell: The Minister's reply was unsatisfactory. He was saying that it was not necessary to approve either new clause, because the NCC, the NERC and the Secretary of State would produce the necessary information. If that is so, what objection can there be to writing such a provision into the legislation? If information about seal culling is to be produced anyway, there can surely be no objection to making it a statutory obligation.
The Under-Secretary speaks for other Departments in resisting the reasonable new clauses, and that causes us considerable apprehension. He is right to say that public disquiet is caused by the brutality that occurs at every seal cull in this country or anywhere else. That brutality is so horrific that it will no longer be tolerated by reasonable men and women.
I do not understand why seals have to be clubbed to death. We would not allow any other animal to be killed in that way, whether it was being killed for food or because it was regarded as a pest. The public do not understand why it is necessary and they are totally opposed to it. This is one of those cases when the instinct of the British people is at its best.
I do not disregard the fishermen's case, though no scientific evidence has yet been produced about the need to protect fish. If we have to keep the seal population under control, however, there must be more humane ways of achieving that end.
The new clause goes to the heart of how we have solved many problems that have arisen in other parts of the Bill. There have been arguments between the Government and the Opposition about whether there should be compulsion, and when we have not been able to get the Government to agree to compulsory powers we have suggested that we should have public information and the knowledge on which an informed debate can take place, so that our democracy can assert itself.
The Under-Secretary said towards the end of his speech that there was some information that was confidential to the Government. I was not aware that the culling of seals came under the Official Secrets Act or that the Government had information about the seal population that they could not give the rest of the population. Surely that cannot be so.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: One tends to believe that secrecy is used when someone has given the Government

suspect information which he does not want challenged. That is unfortunate. Open government would enable us to test all the information on which Governments base their decisions. This is a reasonable place to start.

Mr. Howell: I agree with my hon. Friend. In fairness to the Minister, he said that the information was available by one means or another, but he went on to say that there was some information that was confidential to the Government. We are passing a Bill which may last for 40 years, so we are not discussing only next year's cull We are determining principles and we say that there can be no information on this subject that ought not to be made public so that an informed and knowledgeable discussion can take place.
We should be happy if, even at the last moment, the Minister would agree that either new clause 4 or new clause 41 should be added to the Bill. If he is not able to do that, we would like to vote in favour of both new clauses, but we shall certainly vote for new clause 4 as a token of our dissatisfaction.

Mr. Monro: The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) was a little unfair in one respect. There is no difference between us on the seriousness of the issue. I have not pressed the point that both new clauses are legally defective, because it is more important to note that the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the method of killing seals and that neither new clause would necessarily have any bearing on that.
New clause 4 calls for the NERC and the NCC to make an annual report to the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for the Environment. That will not necessarily mean a dramatic change in the method of culling, if culls take place—and that has not happened for the past three seasons.
I said that there might be confidential information arid not that there is or would be such information. I am not aware of any, but it is right to insert the caveat that there may be some things that a Secretary of State would keep to himself when making a decision.
I see no reason why all the evidence should not be freely available within the consultative committee set up by the Secretary of State. Obviously, it will be necessary for both sides to see each other's arguments. There is astonishingly little between us and I do not know why the Opposition wish to press the new clause to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 98, Noes 139.

Division No. 264]
[7.40 pm


AYES


Allaun, Frank
Cryer, Bob


Alton, David
Dalyell, Tam


Anderson, Donald
Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Deakins, Eric


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Dixon, Donald


Beith, A. J.
Dormand, Jack


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Dubs, Alfred


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Dunn, James A.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)
Eadie, Alex


Buchan, Norman
Eastham, Ken


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)


Campbell, Ian
Evans, loan (Aberdare)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Ewing, Harry


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Faulds, Andrew


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Fitch, Alan


Coleman, Donald
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Cowans, Harry
Fookes, Miss Janet


Crowther, J. S.
Foster, Derek






Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Pavitt, Laurie


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Prescott, John


Golding, John
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Graham, Ted
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Rooker, J. W.


Grant, John (Islington C)
Sever, John


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Sheerman, Barry


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Hardy, Peter
Skinner, Dennis


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Snape, Peter


Home Robertson, John
Spearing, Nigel


Homewood, William
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hooley, Frank
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Howell, Rt Hon D.
Stoddart, David


Howells, Geraint
Stott, Roger


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Strang, Gavin


John, Brynmor
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Tinn, James


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)
Welsh, Michael


Kerr, Russell
White, Frank R.


Lamond, James
Whitehead, Phillip


Leighton, Ronald
Whitlock, William


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Litherland, Robert
Winnick, David


McCartney, Hugh
Woolmer, Kenneth


McKay, Allen (Penistone)


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Tellers for the Ayes:


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Mr. George Morton.


Park, George





Alexander, Richard
Greenway, Harry


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Grist, Ian


Bendall, Vivian
Hamilton, Hon A.


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hannam, John


Best, Keith
Hawksley, Warren


Biggs-Davison, John
Heddle, John


Blackburn, John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Bright, Graham
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Brinton, Tim
Hurd, Hon Douglas


Brittan, Leon
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Brooke, Hon Peter
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Bryan, Sir Paul
Kimball, Marcus


Budgen, Nick
King, Rt Hon Tom


Butcher, John
Knight, Mrs Jill


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Lamont, Norman


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Lee, John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Le Marchant, Spencer


Chapman, Sydney
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Luce, Richard


Clegg, Sir Walter
Lyell, Nicholas


Cockeram, Eric
Macfarlane, Neil


Colvin, Michael
MacGregor, John


Cope, John
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Corrie, John
Madel, David


Cranborne, Viscount
Marlow, Tony


Crouch, David
Mates, Michael


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Mather, Carol


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Eggar, Tim
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Farr, John
Mellor, David


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Moate, Roger


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Monro, Hector


Forman, Nigel
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Murphy, Christopher


Goodlad, Alastair
Myles, David


Gow, Ian
Neale, Gerrard


Gray, Hamish
Newton, Tony





Normanton, Tom
Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)


Onslow, Cranley
Stradling Thomas, J.


Osborn, John
Tebbit, Norman


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)
Thompson, Donald


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Parris, Matthew
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Pawsey, James
Trippier, David


Pollock, Alexander
Viggers, Peter


Prior, Rt Hon James
Waddington, David


Proctor, K. Harvey
Waldegrave, Hon William


Rhodes James, Robert
Wall, Patrick


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Ward, John


Rossi, Hugh
Warren, Kenneth


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Watson, John


Scott, Nicholas
Wells, Bowen


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Wheeler, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wickenden, Keith


Shepherd, Richard
Wolfson, Mark


Skeet, T. H. H.
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Speed, Keith


Speller, Tony
Tellers for the Noes:


Spence, John
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton


Stainton, Keith
and


Stanbrook, Ivor
Mr. Selwyn Gummer

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 38

SALE OF IMPORTED HARES

'It shall not be lawful during the months of March, April, May, June or July to sell or expose for sale in any part of Great Britain any hare or leverets imported into Great Britain.'—[Mr. Hardy.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Hardy: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This matter can, I think, be dispensed with fairly rapidly, although hon. Members, had they so wished, could have addressed the House for a long period, largely because the new clause concerns the Hares Preservation Act 1892, one of the faltering steps forward in the early development of conservation. The Act established virtually a close time for hares during the breeding season. It made unlawful the sale or exposure for sale of hares or leverets in any part of Great Britain during the months of March, April, May, June and July. This conferred a measure of protection on the hare which was felt to be necessary in 1892. Now, 88 years later, I think that we still need to protect the hare, at least partially.
Unfortunately, the Act took little account of anything happening outside these islands, and it was specifically excluded from applying to imported foreign hares. Since there is an inadequacy of record keeping and one cannot prove easily that a hare on sale is a foreign one, there seems to be justification for a further look at the matter now.
The Bill seeks in part to fulfil our international commitments and demonstrates above all that we are only a part of the world of conservation. It seems highly appropriate, therefore, that the Bill should take foreign hares into account. It may be that in some counties in England the hare is much less common than it was. In my view, the same argument can be applied to hares in neighbouring countries.
I hope that we can take action not merely to protect in Britain the British hare, but to protect in Britain the hare which we might otherwise import from countries where it may be more scarce than it is here. Therefore, I ask


whether we can delete section 3 of the Hares Preservation Act 1892. It is 88 years since the Act was passed, and it is now appropriate for its provisions to be reconsidered.

The Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services (Mr. Tom King): I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) who, with his close interest in these matters, has identified what appears on the face of it to be a loophole in our law. We understand his arguments about the failure to cover hares from other countries being sold here and his concern that conservation interests should not be confined to our shores but should extend to the wider Continent of Europe.
At the moment, however, we are not aware of any problem in this respect. The NCC has not advised us that it is aware of any problem here, but we are having discussions about some of the related problems. If we find that there is a need for action we have powers under the Endangered Species Act 1976 which, as he knows, covers more than merely endangered species. We have powers, and those can be implemented. Therefore, if action of this kind proves to be needed it can be taken under existing powers.
On that basis, and with that assurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not feel it necessary to press his motion to a Division.

Mr. Hardy: I am extremely grateful for that assurance. I hope that progress will be made if it proves to be necessary.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 44

DAILY INSPECTION OF SNARES

'(1) If any person sets, or causes or procures to be set, any snare which is of such a nature and so placed as to be calculated to cause bodily injury to any wild animal coming into contact therewith, he shall inspect, or cause some competent person to inspect the snare at least once every day.

(2) If any person fails to comply with the provisions of this section he shall be guilty of an offence.'.—[Mr. Hardy.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Hardy: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 274, in clause 21, page 20, line 9 leave out 'or'.
No. 275, in clause 21, page 20, line 9 after '11', insert `or (Daily inspection snares)'.

Mr. Hardy: You will have noticed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the spirit of good will and co-operation that has dominated our proceedings so far. It is perhaps in that spirit that I address my mind to the new clause.
The Minister will be aware that the Committee was deeply concerned about snares and that many Members would have welcomed their complete abolition. However, the clause does not demand abolition, although it recognises that there can be a great deal of cruelty in the use of snares. Indeed, in Committee the Minister referred to their potential cruelty and later he made it clear that his Department was aware of the concern about the use of snares and was carrying out studies to see whether an

alternative was available. However, he made it clear that he believed that snares should be inspected frequently. I believe that every hon. Member would endorse that view.
Snaring may be necessary. That is arguable. There is no doubt that those sheep farmers about whom we heard in Committee will argue strongly that it is necessary. But I think that we are entitled to say that if, in this important Bill, which has to be seen as a forward-looking measure, we are to look forward, we have to ask those who believe snaring to be necessary to accept that snares should be inspected regularly.
The potential cruelty of snares is increased enormously if they are not inspected regularly. If they are ignored and left for days on end, as sometimes they may be, the amount of cruelty inflicted is perhaps worse than in any other form of destruction.
I believe that there will be a general welcome for the new clause. I could speak about it at great length, but I do not think that the House wishes to hear long speeches and I shall avoid making them. However, I hope that the Minister will agree that this proposal is a balanced and reasonable compromise.
We are not saying in the clause that all snaring should be abolished, though urban man might welcome that. We recognise the claim for reality in our attitude to agriculture. At the same time, however, those who place snares to destroy wildlife must accept that they, too, have an obligation to the conscience of the country at large and that that conscience requires regular inspection of snares.
The Minister may use the argument that he advanced in defence of the free-running snare, that to widen the provision of prohibition would give the police too difficult a job, but I believe that he does not wish to provide a shelter for the irresponsible or the careless. There are careless and irresponsible people, and they ought to be discouraged. With that in mind, I believe that this compromise is reasonable.
There is the point that the snare could catch a protected creature. It could catch a schedule 6 animal. For that reason, it is even more important that the free-running snare should be inspected very frequently, so that any animal that it is not designed to catch may be released.
I believe that the clause will commend itself not only to Opposition Members but to some Government supporters who may not share all our attitudes towards wild life. I hope, therefore, that the compromise that underlies this amendment will commend it to the House.

Mr. David Ennals: I support the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy). I should like to see the abolition of all snares, which can cause great suffering, and that is why my hon. Friends have put forward a compromise, which I believe is the best that we can expect to get at present.
Snares can cause pain and misery not only for the animals that they are designed to catch but for other animals that have the misfortune to fall into them. We know of examples not just of rabbits and foxes, for which they may be designed, but of badgers, deer, cats, dogs and even sheep, cattle and pigs that have become trapped in snares, and we know the hardship and the misery that can be caused.
Snares are cheap, nasty and very cruel. But, worst of all, they can be set and not inspected for days. Animals can be left to die slowly in snares that are not inspected


at frequent intervals. No member of the public would want that to happen, and a decision to approve my hon. Friend's clause will be welcomed.
I have before me the views of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. It says:
It is quite monstrous that in 1981 it is still permissible to set a snare and leave it unattended for a lengthy period of time, allowing an animal to die slowly and possibly in very great agony.
It is with that in mind that I support my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley.

Mr. Ted Graham: My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) reiterated the view that most of us expressed in Committee, that we would rather snares were not used at all. However, we also recognised the force of the argument in Committee that, in certain circumstances, in the face of the attack upon the livelihood of the farmer, one has to tolerate something that is obnoxious and objectionable. The amendment therefore seeks to ameliorate the enormous damage that is done by the human race to the predator and the pest, which is nevertheless an animal that deserves some thought in our legislation.
8 pm
The Government should reflect that it is not right that the nature of the snare and its control and monitoring should be left without let or hindrance or penalty. We accept that in some circumstances the snare may be the only means of controlling pests. We have all seen obscene pictures of animals caught in snares—particularly the fox, but also the badger. The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir M. Kimball) described in Committee how he had released otters from snares on more than one occasion. We object to the indiscriminate use of the snare, perhaps by the unprofessional or the amateur who seeks to make money out of snaring. I am talking not about the legitimate defence of his stock by the farmer, but about the money that can be made from snaring.
In another place and in Committee we were given the figures that were compiled by a study in Oxford, showing that nowadays 100,000 foxes a year are caught by snare and are used for sale for commercial purposes. I have no objection to commercial purposes, but when that involves cruelty to animals such as seals—an illustration that was given by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) as part of a commercial undertaking, we as human beings must ask ourselves what we can do to circumvent it.
If the snare is the only legitimate way of protecting stock, it should be used. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) is not here. He was a diligent attender in Committee, where he said on 2 June:
It is essential that snares should be retained for pest control, for use by gamekeepers and for the protection of many farmers".—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 2 June 1981, c. 277.]
He also said that the snare needed to be visited regularly. We must try to define what "regularly" means. If an animal is caught and is being hideously tortured by the means by which it is caught, we must seek to try to release it from its misery as humanely and as early as possible.
We are saying that a farmer who knows where he has set his snares and is a professional should have to inspect

them regularly. We should like it to be done daily. In our view, any longer period would prolong an animal's agony. We are saying that failure to inspect daily is an offence. An offence is defined in the Bill, and the penalty for the offence is defined. In this instance, conviction for the offence of failure to inspect—which must mean that an animal is proved to have been caught and held for longer than for 24 hours—is a sum not exceeding £1,000.
Some people may feel that that is an enormous sum of money. We believe that the offence is an enormous affront to humanity to be part and parcel of an exercise which allows animals to suffer in this way. Therefore, we hope that the Minister will view the amendment favourably. Otherwise, we shall support my hon. Friend if he decides to press it to a Division.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) said on Second Reading that the snare was a vicious and cruel device. He also said that the catching of animals in snares was an extremely cruel practice. We are not arguing here about the practice of snaring but about how quickly and humanely it is possible to release an animal that is caught in a snare. I hope that the Minister will move towards the point of view that is held by millions of people outside the House. He will not undermine the need of large sections of the community, particularly farmers, to use a snare if that is the only device that can be used. However, we must not only think of the farmer but of the poor suffering animal, too.

Sir Marcus Kimball: I hope that when my hon. Friend replies he will draw attention to the voluntary code of conduct published by the British Field Sports Society, supported by all the shooting organisations and practised by the Forestry Commission and similar organisations, which contains recommendations that snares should be inspected at least once every 24 hours. The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) spoke about the commercial value, but in fact that commercial value is a safeguard.
A well-grown dog fox off the hills in Scotland in December is worth about £28, and the average price of the pelts from Altnaharra last year was £14. Those pelts must be well skinned and not marked. Certainly, the animals could not be left in the snare for more than 12 hours, otherwise the pelts would be spoilt. So, although I hate to admit it, the high price of pelts is in itself a safeguard, and ensures that for sound commercial reasons people will inspect the snares frequently and regularly.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I congratulate the Government on inserting in the Bill a provision to make illegal the self-locking snare. I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he will say how he hopes to draw that matter to the attention of the people in the countryside and make sure that it is enforced. We spent some time in Committee discussing the problems of the difference between self-locking and free-running snares. I believe, as I said in Committee, that there will be considerable difficulty in drawing to people's attention that difference and enforcing it. So I hope that the Minister will be able to say how he intends to enforce the provision.
In Committee there was widespread condemnation of those who set snares unnecessarily so that they caught animals that they did not seek to catch. Particular concern was expressed about the number of pets and protected animals that were caught in snares.
The only defence of those who wanted to retain snares was that in a few instances the gamekeeper and the farmer


who had a specific problem continued to need to use them. We were talking particularly about infestations of rabbits and situations where foxes were a major problem. If snaring were restricted to those groups, I believe that we should have made much progress. The trouble is that there are still many who set snares where there is no major problem. They set them indiscriminately, and they catch all sorts of other creatures.
I believe that by putting the new clause into the Bill we should make it clear that the person setting a snare must be a responsible person; he must be someone who will carry out the code of practice. We are not trying to get at those who will carry out the code of practice. We are trying to get at those who have no intention of carrying out the code of practice and who are causing hardship through this indiscriminate slaughter of animals.
It may be said that there would be problems for the farmer if he set a snare and for some reason could not get around to inspecting it. If he has a problem on his land, he can set out to decide how he will snare rabbits by putting down snares only when he knows that either he or someone he employs can visit them regularly and that he can regulate the setting of the snares perfectly reasonably.
The same applies to trapping foxes. If the farmer has a problem, he can regulate his activities so that he has a good chance of being able to visit the snare regularly, or within 24 hours. There ought not to be any difficulty for the person who has a problem and is setting out to deal with it in a professional way and is trying to minimise the hardship to the animals.
I regret that one or two other amendments on the topic were not selected, or could not be tabled, because in Committee the Minister hinted that he was looking at some research that was being done to try to find alternatives to the use of the snare. I hope that he will give us an indication of what progress is being made and whether there is any possibility within the next five or six years of the Government's introducing legislation to outlaw all snares.
Much as I hope that the new clause will be put into the Bill, I suspect that as long as there is a distinction between the self-locking snare and the free-running snare there will be problems in the countryside. Whatever is said about a voluntary code, I know that many people will continue to set snares, causing a great deal of misery to animals and catching many animals that ought not to be hunted in any way.

Mr. Monro: This has been a useful debate. I know how strongly hon. Members feel about the question of snares. We discussed this matter in detail in Committee. It was discussed in another place as well. It originated from strong pressure from the RSPCA about the daily inspection of snares. It was right that hon. Members were highlighting the obligation to wildlife of those who set snares to see that they are inspected daily. This is the law in Scotland relative to snares set for hares and rabbits—but not those set for foxes.
It is also true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir. M. Kimball) highlighted, that there is a code of conduct which is supported by the British Field Sports Society and other societies interested in field sports. The Agricultural Development and Advisory Service and the colleges in Scotland give the strong advice that farmers should inspect snares daily, for the very reasons that have been brought out in the debate.
8.15 pm
I listened carefully to hon . Members and was impressed by their comments on the new clause, of which I accept the principle. However, I should like to rehearse one or two difficulties related to it, particularly as regards inspection when weather conditions make it impossible—for instance, in a blizzard, or with deep snow on high ground in Scotland coming overnight. At such times, through no fault of himself, the gamekeeper, farm worker, or whoever is instructed to inspect the snare may find it physically impossible to do the inspection.
It is possible that someone could set a snare one clay and, because of illness, be physically incapable of inspecting it the next day, only he knowing where to look.
The new clause presents the problem in drafting terms—I have been checking on this matter—of defining a "competent person" to inspect the snare at least daily. It would need some very careful definition as to who would be competent to inspect.
However, bearing in mind the Scottish provision which already covers hares and rabbits, I should like to see whether we can come to an arrangement with another place to accept a professionally drafted amendment. I say that with no criticism of the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy). I would be glad to do my best to see that the spirit of the new clause was brought into effect.

Mr. Denis Howell: Perhaps the Minister will help us. Obviously, what he has been saying is extremely helpful and very welcome to the Opposition. However, I must confess my procedural ignorance as to whether it will be possible in another place to amend this Bill at the stage it has reached. Are their Lordships under the same restriction to which we would be subject if the Bill were moving in the opposite direction? We could deal only with the Lords amendments to a Commons Bill; we could not put any new matter into one of our Bills at this stage. Therefore, whilst I appreciate what the Minister has been saying, perhaps he will given us an assurance—or perhaps you can advise us, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that procedurally the Government will be able in another place to do what they want to do.

Mr. Hardy: I entirely accept the Minister's suggestion that I am not a parliamentary draftsman. I have no such pretensions. I am perfectly prepared to accept that the new clause is defective. I take his points about the weather and illness. They are relevant. I suggest that the Minister should accept my new clause, with my assurance that I should not be disappointed, disturbed or angry if amendments were made in the other place to meet those points.

Mr. Monro: Hon. Members have been most helpful in coming to the solution that I was about to put to the House. Procedurally, I think that we can succeed only by making substantial changes to the drafting of new clause 44. On that understanding, I shall accept the new clause. When we have time, we shall ensure that the new clause is corrected in the other place. I hope that we shall be able to make allowance for bad weather and for the other points that have been raised. On that understanding, I shall accept new clause 44 and shall see that it is adjusted to the draftsman's satisfaction in the other place.

Mr. Denis Howell: I am obliged to the Minister, but I am extremely confused about the procedural point—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]. My hon. Friends may say that,


but they have not heard the point that I wish to put. Although I want the Minister to do what he has said, he suggested—we are happy to go along with him thus far—that the deficient new clause should be written into the Bill and that it would be straightened out in the other place.
My question is simple. If their Lordships mess about with one of our amendments in the other place—even at that stage—will not the measure have to come back here for our approval?

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Yes.

Mr. Howell: There is no further stage that allows that to happen. If there is, it has escaped me in my 26 years as a Member of Parliament.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: At this stage, if we carry any amendment the odds will be that we have the drafting wrong. However, if the provision is included in the Bill, the other place can disagree and put the wording right. The measure then comes back to this House and we have the choice of agreeing or disagreeing with the other place. Theoretically, but not often in practice, it is possible for the measure to go backwards and forwards between the two Houses until agreement has been reached.

Mr. Howell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out that we shall have yet another opportunity to discuss the Bill. That point had escaped me and must be another reason for supporting the Minister in what he wishes to do. This House will not see the end of the Bill this side of the Summer Recess. Many of us thought that that would be so.
We are delighted with the Minister's approach to daily inspections and we are happy to accept his offer. We have been greatly concerned about snares and the hon. Gentleman will know that daily inspection is the minimum that can be justified, given the cruelty that snares often involve. Indeed, we discussed that at great length in Committee. Given what the Minister has said about changes being made in the other place, I ask him first to consider acting on advice that he gave in Committee. He will recall that he said that new materials were coming to hand. I think that he said that they had found their way into snares that were in use in Canada and that most people felt that the snares were far superior to those that we used, and eliminated a considerable amount of cruelty.
If it is possible to use new materials and to produce a more acceptable type of snare, will the Minister consider taking powers, when the Bill goes to the other place, which will allow the Secretary of State to proscribe—when the time is right—the use of those snares that cause great public alarm, and to prescribe the new material and the new snare when they are commercially available here. That would be sensible. Obviously, the Government would have to be satisfied that those new snares were available. However, as the Bill will last 20 or 30 years, it would commend itself to hon. Members if it contained a power—if the Government were satisfied that it was practicable—for that to be done by order. Although we are not debating that specific point, I hope that the Minister will reconsider it between now and the Bill's return to the other place.
We accept the Minister's assurance, and obviously my hon. Friends will wish to consider asking leave to

withdraw the new clause—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am sorry, I should have said that my hon. Friends will wish to accept the Minister's advice to include the new clause in the Bill, so that it can be amended in another place.

Mr. Hardy: I am grateful to the Minister, and I shall act on his advice, although I welcome the advice of my right hon. Friend 99·9 per cent. of the time. The Minister is right to accept my clause. I am confident, and I am sure that when he thinks about it he can be confident, that their Lordships will make a satisfactory job of it, so that it is not bouncing about for any more stages.
I trust that their Lordships will recognise that the clause has much support on both sides of the House. I also trust that we shall shortly see a more sensible approach, whereby a voluntary system is required by law. It is wrong that people can act responsibly voluntarily and watch others, whom they may know well, disregard the voluntary code and bring country life into disrepute and argument. I hope that their Lordships will accept the spirit of the amendment and that the Minister will not find too much difficulty in obtaining a sensible and practicable drafting of the new proposals.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: We have not pressed the Minister on the question of the penalty, which is covered by the two other amendments. I hope that that will be included in the Government's redrafting of the new clause.

Mr. Hardy: I trust that my hon. Friend's point will be noted by the Minister and that he can find an arrangement that will satisfy us.

Mr. Monro: I hope that hon. Members appreciate the attitude that I have taken regarding the amendments and the new clause. I have been criticised frequently left, right and centre, but by and large I think that we now have an important measure which should make some impact on a problem that we discussed in detail in committee.
We accept the new clause in the name of the hon. Member for Rother Vally (Mr. Hardy), and I shall make certain that our draftsmen examine it for reconsideration and amendment in another place.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 47

USE OF VEHICLES IN POACHING OFFENCES

If a constable suspects with reasonable cause that any person in committing or has committed any offence under section 2 of the Night Poaching Act 1828, or section 31 of the Game Laws (Amendment) Act 1960 he may seize and detain for the purposes of proceedings under these Acts anything including any vehicle which is evidence of the commission of the offence or has been used in the commission of the offence.'. —[Mr. Beith.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The background to the clause is the reality of larger-scale poaching in the countryside today—not the romantic image of the countryman who slips out from his cottage in the dead of night and gets one for the pot—one that he brings home—but the organised gangs who come out from the towns in vans and cars and obtain large amounts of game reared at someone else's expense, or deer conserved by someone else's efforts, and take it back to the towns to sell commercially by back-door methods, usually for


considerable financial gain. This organised commercialised poaching by townsmen on a fairly big scale has caused landowners and gamekeepers many serious problems. The new clause is directed towards that.
8.30 pm
The law as it stands makes a broad distinction. In cases of salmon and deer poaching, once a policeman is involved he can impound the vehicle used by the accused persons in the commission of the offence, as well as any other equipment that they may have been using. In the case of game and rabbits he does not have that power. He can seize certain items, but not the vehicle.
One result of that is that often a group of urban poachers will have some of their equipment seized, will be charged with an offence, and the next night will reappear in the same area in the same vehicle, carrying out the offence all over again and hoping for another night's takings as a means of paying the fines for the previous night's convictions. That kind of organised commercial poaching can take calculated risks.
Under the existing legislation, a police constable may search any person whom he has good cause to suspect of coming from land where he has been unlawfully in search or pursuit of game. The right of search is extensive. The constable may also seize or detain any game or article found. When a constable apprehends someone under the Acts relating to poaching, he may seize and detain any game or rabbits, or any gun, part of a gun or other article of a kind used for the killing or taking of game or rabbits. Disposal of the seized articles is a matter for the court.
But that power does not extend to vehicles, whereas under the Theft Act 1968 the vehicle may be seized where someone is poaching fish, and the Deer Act 1980 provides that the vehicle may be seized when someone is apprehended for poaching deer. It says that a constable
may seize and detain for the purposes of proceedings under this Act anything which is evidence of the commission of the offence and any deer, venison, vehicle, animal, weapon or other thing which is liable to be forfeited under section 5".
The power concerning vehicles is explicit in the case of poaching fish and deer but not in the case of game or rabbits. People apprehended for poaching deer will often say "We were only out looking for rabbits", and thus hope to evade the greater rigour of the Deer Act.
The matter needs to be examined more closely. It has been brought to my attention by working gamekeepers in my constituency who have the difficult task of enforcing the laws, often dealing with fairly violent and difficult people. They believe that the powers available to the constable whom they summon to the scene are inadequate and that the law is being laughed at, when the same people can return the next night in the vehicle that they used before to commit the same offence.
I have already raised the matter with the Government, and I have received a reply from the Home Office. The Minister of State referred to the Game Laws (Amendment) Act 1960, which was a private Member's measure, and said that it was not clear why, at the time of its passage, vehicles were not specifically included. The hon. Gentleman said that he was advised that
while at common law police powers of search and seizure are limited if the vehicle might reasonably be considered to be material evidence of an offence, there is already power to seize it following a lawful arrest.
I do not think that that power is known or understood by the police, or that it is sufficiently clearly defined to enable them to make good use of it.
The Home Office view, stated in that letter, included the typical Home Office phrase that legislation ought
not to proceed in a piecemeal fashion".
It is obvious that all legislation on game has proceeded in a piecemeal fashion. It is a series of Acts built one upon another. The early references to vehicles in it are to carts or conveyances. This is probably as good an opportunity as any to examine the problem, which is causing difficulties to people whose job it is to enforce the law and who are dealing with a different kind of poacher from the one with the traditional image.
I shall be grateful if the Minister will turn his mind to the matter and let me know the Government's present thinking on it.

Mr. Farr: I welcome the new clause moved by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). I was lucky to get the Deer Act 1980 through the House. One of the matters which concerned its supporters was the evidence of the tremendous rewards gained by professional poachers. I am not referring to the person who catches an odd pheasant, rabbit or hare. Until the Deer Act 1980 professional poachers got five or six carcases a night, each worth up to £300 or £400. They did very well indeed.
As the hon. Gentleman said, until the 1980 Act poachers could go out the next night, in the same vehicle, and repeat the crime. It is an anomaly that we prevent deer poachers from using vehicles in a repetitive way but still permit those who make illicit mass killings of pheasants to go out night after night in the same vehicle. Professional gangs make a good living by travelling at fast speeds around the countryside in specially equipped vehicles.
I hope that the Government will consider the new clause sympathetically. I congratulate the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed on the way that he presented it.

Mr. Hardy: I join the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) in congratulating the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on the clause, which I am sure the House will support. It clears up a point that has concerned me for some time. In previous conservation legislation there was a suggestion that that which was used in the carrying out of an offence should be confiscated. During the consideration of the Badgers Act 1973 and the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act [975 I entertained the vain hope that those who used a vehicle to commit an offence would risk losing it. Unfortunately, in no case has a court taken the view that the vehicle was liable to be confiscated.
If a gang of thugs drive their car on to Forestry Commission land, or any other land, to destroy a badger sett, that vehicle is being used to perpetrate an offence and should be forfeited. The lawyers, judges and magistrates have not taken that view. The clause might persuade them to do so. As the hon. Member for Harborough pointed out, offences can be be very profitable. It behoves the House to make them less profitable for those who perpetrate them.

Mr. Graham: I support the clause on behalf of the Opposition. It was interesting to listen to the hon. Member for Berwich-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) telling the House about the meandering history of the way in which laws are built up. It is clear that when a new principle is established it is not possible to apply it uniformly across the board to take into account every conceivable situation. During the past few years there has been a tremendous increase in the method and nature of offences.
The point that should be impressed upon the Minister is that when the law is made a laughing stock or brought into disrepute—not by ourselves but by the limitations on it—piecemeal or not we should take any opportunity, such as that provided by the Bill, to put it right. I hope that the Minister will recognise that although the provision in the clause could be seen to be almost draconian, because it is heavy and effective, we are in fact looking for an effective deterrent to stop people before they contemplate a crime and to persuade them that the punishment will make the crime not worth while. They will be deterred because the proposed change in the law will cost them a great deal of money.
The provision will give increased stature and satisfaction to the law maker and law enforcer. Nothing can be more infuriating than to know that those who have been caught redhanded can strike a balance by saying that during the night or week they have gained enough to offset their loss. The scales must be tilted heavily against such persons. I hope that the Minister will accept the new clause.

Mr. Monro: This has been another interesting debate. I am sure that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) will agree that he is lucky to have located in his constituency the finest salmon river in Scotland. Incidentally, its source is on the borders of my own constituency of Dumfries, which shows what a long and important river it is for salmon.
The new clause provides that a constable may seize and retain anything, including any vehicle, which is evidence of, or has been used in, the commission of any offence under section 2 of the Night Poaching Act 1828—some while before we had motor vehicles—or under section 31 of what is referred to in the new clause as
the Game Laws (Amendment) Act 1960".
Of course, the reference is incorrect; it should have been section 31 of the Game Act 1831, as amended by the Game Laws (Amendment) Act 1960. That provides that constables and certain other persons may require any person found in pursuit of game in the daytime to quit the land and to give his name and address and, if he fails to do so, to apprehend him. The consequence is that the new clause is defective.
However, our objection goes wider than that. The new clause may be aimed primarily at the seizure of vehicles used by poachers, but it refers to the seizure of anything, including any vehicle. Provision is already made by virtue of section 4(1) of the Game Laws (Amendment) Act 1960 for a police constable to seize and retain any game or rabbits, or any gun, ammunition or nets, snares or other devices used for poaching game or rabbits and found in the possession of a person apprehended under sections 1, 2 and 9 of the Night Poaching Act 1828, which relate to persons trespassing in pursuit of game at night, and section 31 of the Game Act 1831, which relates to the apprehension of persons found in pursuit of game in the daytime who fail to quit and give their name and address. In other words, the new clause seeks to cover the seizure by a constable of certain things that are already liable to seizure by virtue of the 1960 Act.
The hon. Gentleman quoted the letter from the Minister of State, Home Office, which stated that there was already power to seize a vehicle following a lawful arrest. It would

indeed be helpful to the police if a poacher used the same car all the time, because at least they would then know that he was likely to be parked near a river with an offence in mind.
I accept that all hon. Members feel strongly about poaching, be it for game or fish. I also agree that the police should use all the powers at their command, and I have indicated that they have substantial powers to apprehend poachers, seize their equipment and—as my hon. Friend the Minister of State said—to confiscate a car where an arrest has been made. It could be argued that if an arrest had not been made the police would have undue power if the person involved were only being cautioned and not arrested.
I accept that we should be as tough as possible on poachers and ensure that they receive the maximum penalty when brought before a court, but the provision in the new clause to ensure that they forfeit a motor car is already covered by existing legislation when an arrest is made. In those circumstances, this is possibly not the Bill in which to include the new clause.
On another occasion the hon. Gentleman may care to promote a measure of his own if he feels that the assurances that I have given are not adequate. However, I ask him to ask leave to withdraw the new clause. He has had the opportunity to make his case, and I hope that it receives publicity. I feel that there are sufficient powers with the police to take the car into custody along with the poacher if an arrest is made.

Mr. Beith: I am sure that the Minister's comments about the powers of the police under common law will be widely noted. However, it will be remembered that that power did not seem adequate when the Deer Act 1980 was passing through the House. The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) was responsible for that legislation and I was one of the sponsors. The hon. Gentleman thought it right to include explicit provisions, and that has resulted in a different practice for deer. The police feel able to take action on deer poaching whereas they feel that the ground is less sure when it comes to game poaching. I hope that the definition that the Minister has presented will make the police feel more confident. One is bound to feel slightly worried when Parliament explicitly includes vehicles in the Deer Act while continuing to omit such references in other legislation.
The Minister talked about taking advantage of other opportunities. He reminded us that all Governments tend to leave game legislation to private Members. It is one of the areas in which Governments do not like to become too closely involved. Wildlife and countryside Bills may be all right, but after the Government's experience with this one they may feel that they do not want to get involved with a similar Bill in future. Game Bills are left almost invariably to private Members. That is not satisfactory. The basic structure of law and penalty should be provided for in Government legislation. Parliament should not have to rely on Bills promoted by Private Members.

Mr. Dalyell: It should be recorded that had the Government offered at an earlier stage what they have now offered the timetable would have been entirely different.

Mr. Beith: I do not think that the new clause is the right vehicle for entering into a major argument on what


concessions should have been offered. A Bill of this complexity is bound to take a fair amount of time, with or without arguments on concessions. The Bill would have been an appropriate measure in which to make provision of the kind that the clause seeks. It is desirable that the issue should receive more attention and that more discussion should take place.
I have been encouraged by the comments that I have heard in various parts of the House. A number of hon. Members feel that action should be taken on the lines set out in the clause. I hope that the Government have taken due note of that. This discussion should not be the end of the matter. If I do not proceed with the clause at this stage, it is because I act in the knowledge that there is considerable support in the House for action to be taken at a later stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

PROTECTION OF WILD BIRDS, THEIR NESTS AND EGGS

Mr. Monro: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 3, after first 'any', insert 'live or dead'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 2 and 3, 18 to 20 and 172 to 174.

Mr. Monro: The amendments are designed to meet arguments that were advanced in Committee. the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) addressed the Committee on parts of a badger. The amendments implement the general wish of the Committee on parts of an animal. I think that they will be generally acceptable to both sides of the House.

Mr. Hardy: I wish briefly to acknowledge the Minister's comments and to express my gratitude particularly for amendment No. 173. The House will be aware that I took the Badgers Act 1973 through the House. At that time it was a marked step forward, but the years since have demonstrated the need for improvement. I was pleased that the Minister perceived that need in Committee and that he has met the request which I made. I believe that badger protection is now likely to be effective. We owe a debt the Lord Melchett for the steps which he took in the other place. This final improvement is generally to be welcomed.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 2, in page 2, line 6, leave out from beginning to 'he' in line 10.

No. 3, in page 2, line 10, at end insert—
'(2A) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under subsection (2) if he shows that—
(a) the bird or egg had not been killed or taken, or had been killed or taken otherwise than in contravention of the relevant provisions; or
(b) the bird, eggor other thing in his possession or control had been sold (Whether to him or any other person) otherwise than in contravention of those provisions;
and in this subsection "the relevant provisions" means the provisions of this Part and of orders made under it and, in the case of a bird or other thing falling within subsection (2)(a), the provisions of the Protection of Birds Acts 1954 to 1967 and of orders made under those Acts.'.—[Mr. Monro.]

Clause 2

EXCEPTIONS TO S. I

Mr. Hardy: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 3, line 11, leave out sub-paragraph (b).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 6, in page 3, line 11, after 'snipe', insert
'upon grouse moors or other hill country'.
No. 7, in page 3, line 12, at the end insert
'and at any other place the period commencing 1st February and ending with 31st August.'.

Mr. Hardy: These amendments offer the Government a choice. I hope that they will choose rather than resist either alternative. There is clearly a need for improvement in our arrangements for this matter, as the Minister recognised in Committee. Those who served on the Committee will recall the arguments, but one or two hon. Members may benefit from a brief rehearsal of the choice before the Minister.
Now that the jacksnipe has been removed from the quarry list, the snipe is the only wader whose hunting season starts on 12 August rather than 1 September. The House of Lords debated the matter at some length. On 27 January the Earl of Avon suggested that the matter would be referred to the advisory committee. He gave an undertaking that that advice would be sought. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) asked the Minister what advice the advisory committee had given. I do not believe that we had a well informed response.
During our debate we drew a distinction between the shooting of snipe on grouse moors, where grouse shooting starts on 12 August, and the shooting of snipe in lowland areas. The Minister confirmed that snipe were rarely encountered on grouse moors and that if one were shot there it would be such a rare occurrence that it would not affect conservation. I commented that the shooting of snipe in lowland areas could create a serious conservation problem, as all other shooting in those areas is prohibited until 1 September. Snipe shooting in lowland areas can be a marked cause of disturbance to other species at times when they should not be disturbed. There is also the effect on the lowland snipe population due to the taking of birds during those two and half weeks in August. In lowland Britain, because of the appalling loss of habitat, the snipe population has fallen dreadfully. Early season shooting provides a pressure which should not exist.
I should prefer the Minister to accept the bolder and braver of the alternatives before him. If he feels that he cannot do so, I sincerely trust that he will contribute to the conservation of that attractive bird, the snipe, and give it a chance, if not entirely to recover at least to survive despite the appalling destruction of habitat. I trust that one of the two courses of action can be accepted. I hope that the Minister can tell us the view of the advisory committee.

Mr. Farr: It appears almost as if some Opposition Members are pursuing a vendetta against certain forms of lawfully regulated shooting. In Committee, over a succession of days the hon. Members for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) and Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) tried to remove even lawful quarry from the quarry list,


culminating in a whole morning debating the merits of the goldeneye duck, when they tried unsuccessfully to present a case that its numbers had declined. This is a similar attempt to shorten the season for woodcock and snipe by cutting out night shooting and the shooting of certain species. It is part of the original pattern in which they engaged.
Both hon. Gentlemen seem to have set themselves up as vigilantes to safeguard the interests of all forms of bird species. I remind them and the House that the Government set up a special advisory committee—the Wild Birds Advisory Committee for England and Wales—to advise on wild birds in Britain. It was originally set up under the Protection of Birds Act 1954, and the Minister responsible for administering it and deciding whether species were low in number or prolific was the Home Secretary. It is now the Secretary of State for the Environment. The committee meets regularly. I gather that in the past 12 months it has met no fewer than six times, although it normally meets about four times a year. There is a separate committee for Scotland. The duty of the two committees is to advise the Secretary of State for the Environment if there is a conservation problem for any species.
Can my hon. Friend confirm that there has been no suggestion from the committee that the snipe population is in any way in danger? I understand that no recommendation has been made on the subject.
Furthermore, the amendment would make shooting seasons even more confusing. They already vary from species to species, and under the amendment there would be one closed season for high and another for low ground. For example, someone shooting on a mountainside near the sea would have great difficulty in deciding whether he was at a high or a low level.
In addition, there are no conservation grounds for shortening the snipe season. Snipe are as abundant and plentiful as always. Careful monitoring of the stocks of domestic snipe and snipe coming from abroad takes place continually.

Mr. Hardy: The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) should recall that I am not opposed to shooting. Indeed, as his speech develops, I begin to feel that there should be an open season for him.
The hon. Gentleman said that there would be a serious anomaly.

Mr. Graham: My hon. Friend is being sniped at.

Mr. Hardy: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not attribute that pun to me.
We are trying to tidy up shooting dates. As I pointed out, snipe is the only species of wader whose shooting season starts on 12 August. All others start on 1 September, except for the woodcock season, which is later. The alternative that the hon. Gentleman mentioned is not satisfactory. This amendment would make the matter clean and tidy.

Mr. Farr: I am anxious to conclude rapidly. I certainly do not intend to return to the long debates that we had in Committee on these points, especially that of season length. The hon. Gentleman will recall that we discussed at considerable length an attempt by him and some of his hon. Friends to shorten the shooting season for wildfowl.
As I pointed out then, the season was extended and changed as part of a deal at that time. When the starting date was changed the season was extended into February at the other end. It was part of an agreed deal. I assure the House that if hon. Members try to upset that package they will cause a great deal of unfairness to many who engage in legitimate sporting shooting.

9 pm

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I had not intended to intervene in this debate, although I had put my name to the amendment, as I had hoped that the Minister would say that he would accept at least one of the alternatives. Having heard the remarks of the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), however, I feel that I should say a few words. It was evident throughout the Committee stage that there was no sympathy for birds from the hon. Member for Harborough. His main concern was to promote and protect the gun trade and to ensure that as much wildlife as possible could be shot at.
The hon. Gentleman should consider the facts. The snipe is in difficulties. I accept that this is not due to the amount of shooting. It is due to the reduction in the habitat available to it, particularly with the draining of marshes and other lowland areas. Whilst the difficulties do not result from shooting, it is clear that in many parts of the United Kingdom the snipe is being reduced in numbers and there is a problem. It is therefore reasonable to argue that it should receive extra protection beyond that which was given when that deal was done a long time ago.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) offered two possibilities. One was to take the special provision for the snipe out of the Bill altogether. The other was to give it a different special protection, to differentiate between its being shot on moorland and its being shot on lowland and marshland. The hon. Member for Harborough seemed to think that it would be very difficult for people to tell the difference. I should have thought that even where moorland goes to the coast it is very different from estuary or marshland and therefore simple to differentiate.
I should have preferred amendment No. 5 to be carried, but if the Minister cannot accept that, I hope that he will at least accept amendment No. 6 and protect not just the snipe in the lowlands areas but the other birds that are disturbed. Many Opposition Members, and, indeed the Committee, felt that too many people went to shoot one bird and often shot others, either intentionally or by mistake. This would be a simple way to make it clear that all the birds on the estuaries and lowlands are protected until 31 August. I hope that the Minister will accept that.

Mr. Charles Morrison: I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will not accept the amendment. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) said, if different seasons were created for low ground on the one hand and for grouse moors and other hill country on the other, there would be the most appalling muddle in the application of the law. I do not know what is meant by "other hill country". I suppose that it is relatively easy to define a grouse moor, although I am not sure that it is as easy as all that, but to my mind it would be utterly impossible to define "hill country".
I suspect that the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) is thinking of hill country in the North of England. Would the Downs of the South of England be thought of


as hill country? There are wet patches in and around Salisbury Plain, for example, in which snipe live. Or is that low ground? I do not know. If we agree to the amendment we shall once again be giving to the courts the power to make law, whereas it should reside in the House. There will be a considerable muddle and uncertainty about precisely what is meant.
It was said that the shooting of snipe on low ground was a cause of disturbance. What about wood pigeons? They are shot endlessly at harvest time, which nowadays may be from the middle of July. I hope that no one will suggest that the shooting of wood pigeons is a cause of disturbance. I cannot, therefore, see why the shooting of snipe should be a disturbance.
It would be extremely unfortunate if the opportunity to shoot at a snipe early in the season were to be removed, because it would affect particularly adversely the rough shooter. There is not much organised shooting of snipe at the best of times, and it would be the occasional rough shooter—the person who shoots in a small way—who would be most adversely affected by the amendment if it were accepted. My guess is that in any case a very small number of snipe are shot between 12 August and the end of that month.

Mr. Dalyell: After a speech such as the one from the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison), what a pity it is that he was not with us for the 100 hours in Committee, because he would have learnt a great deal. I wonder whether he would have made quite that speech if he had been through the process of self-education that many of us have been through in Committee.
The speech by the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) really was pretty provocative. It is not a question of vendettas or anything of that kind; it is the fact that some of us do not see as a matter of great recreation the shooting of snipe, which we believe is seriously declining in numbers.
What has happened in the advisory committee? My understanding is that there are some members who think that snipe has declined, for reasons that were given by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) and others. Because of the decline of habitat, and for other reasons, the snipe has declined seriously in the country. So my first question is: what is the Government's estimate of the decline in snipe numbers?
My second question is factual. What exactly has the advisory committee said about 1 September? My understanding is that the advisory committee is of the opinion that 1 September and not 12 August is the more appropriate date. As we have so much else to do, I rest on those two questions, but I should like to add one thing.
The hon. Member for Harborough said that we had spent a lot of time on the goldeneye. My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) will remember it well. I should like to record a vote of thanks here and now to the goldeneye. God bless the goldeneye, because it gave us a lot of time, without which we would not have got concessions of the kind that the Opposition have obtained. Let it be recorded that the goldeneye has played its honourable part—together with Sandford on SSSIs, on moorland, on footpaths and on marine nature reserves.

Mr. Monro: The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) raised this matter in Committee. I said that I would consider it carefully, and I have done so. We must try to

be practical. We are talking not about the whole shooting season but about, at most, two and a half weeks in the year.

Mr. Dalyell: But two and a half rather important weeks.

Mr. Monro: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view, but he might listen to what I have to say before giving it.
We must consider the amendment in the context of the two and a half weeks from 12 August to 1 September and consider what is likely to happen during that period. The advisory committee recommended that the season should start on 1 September and gave three reasons for its recommendation.
The first is that in lowland areas snipe and many other species still have dependent young and the disturbance could be harmful. We have to make a judgment. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) that there will be other disturbances on lowland ground at that time. My hon. Friend referred to the shooting of wood pigeons at harvest time. It is like E1 Alamein around some harvest fields near which there are snipe bogs and other wet areas of habitat where snipe may be found. There will be plenty of other disturbance from people shooting pests legitimately. The likelihood of snipe appearing is fairly remote.
The committee's second reason was that even on higher ground there will be immature snipe during August. The third reason was that the committee saw merit in the rationalisation of seasons, but nowhere did it state that such a change would have any impact on conservation, which is what the Bill is about. The NCC brief, which all hon. Members have received, does not mention snipe, and I said in Committee that there was no reduction in snipe numbers at the present time.
The Government noted the committee's advice, and we have not changed the game seasons in the Bill. Game birds are not mentioned, because they are covered by other legislation. The hon. Member for Rother Valley was right to say that of all the birds mentioned in the Bill the snipe is the only species that comes into season on 12 August. However, when talking about rationalisation, the hon. Gentleman must remember that there are other game birds, such as black game, that also come into season in August. We would not remove confusion—we would perhaps add to it—by making only one change to a shooting season.
We are concerned about only two and a half weeks in the year, and it is extremely unlikely that there will be any impact on the numbers of snipe. The Government believe that a change of season is not necessary for conservation reasons.
Other amendments suggest that snipe could be shot on high ground. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes highlighted the obvious impossibility of coming to an arrangement on what is moorland, what is highland and what is the lowland where it 'would be forbidden to shoot snipe during the two and a half weeks up to 1 September.
9.15 pm
When they think about the matter hon. Members will see that the amendment is impracticable. I have been in touch with those who would be most likely to be affected. The large membership of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation tells me that it knows of hardly anyone going out in August to shoot lowland snipe, which


are the concern of Opposition Members. Hon. Members appear not to object too strongly to people shooting, or, I think my hon. Friend for Devizes will agree, attempting to shoot, snipe on a grouse moor, because a high driven snipe is a testing target at any time.
I hope that hon. Members realise that the Government have been as helpful as possible towards their amendments. We have accepted amendments put forward by conservation groups and others. Where there is a good case we have agreed to amendments. Here, in practical terms, a small number of snipe are likely to be shot during the two and half weeks. I have set out the reasons why I do not believe that the amendment has any practical importance for the conservation of snipe, and I must therefore resist it.

Mr. Dalyell: The Minister was justified in referring to the great changes that have been made to the Bill. It is odd therefore that on this matter of the snipe the Government should be so obdurate. I put a factual question. Has the recent evidence from Holland, given to the advisory committee, been taken into account? The Dutch evidence shows that disturbance in August is a major factor. If the Dutch evidence, produced at the last meeting of the advisory committee, is not in his brief, the Minister can perhaps indicate, by the new procedure or some other, that he will bring forward proposals when this matter goes to the other place. In the absence of such an undertaking, I think that it would be the view of my right hon. and hon. Friends that we should divide on the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy). My hon. Friend will doubtless wish to add his expertise on the matter.

Mr. Monro: The hon. Gentleman was a little unreasonable, I believe, in putting forward the example of disturbance in Holland, which is very nearly below sea level, to deal with the issue of snipe on the high ground and moorland of Scotland. Whether or not the advisory committee took this matter into account, it was not brought forward in advice to me. That is what I consider to be important. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is going a little too far if he proposes to lead the Opposition into the Division Lobby on the issue of two and a half weeks' shooting of a minute number of snipe that some people manage to achieve on the high ground and moorland of Scotland. The hon. Gentleman puts a difference between his party and mine on a Bill where we have tried to work together.

Mr. Hardy: I think that the Opposition will have to divide the House. We shall clearly not be dividing on the question of two and a half weeks. The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Fan) has provided a much deeper, underlying reason for a Division. He suggested that

my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and I had a vendetta against shooting people [Interruption.] I suppose that was a Freudian slip because the hon. Member for Harborough had infuriated me. I was not strongly opposed to having an open season on the hon. Gentleman.
I am not opposed to shooting, as the hon. Gentleman knows full well. I am, however, in favour of conservation. It seems sad that the hon. Gentleman, with all his experience and his contact with the sporting fraternity, should be taking a much less estimable position than the one with which we normally associate him. For example, I take the view that our task is to ensure that wildlife achieves an abundance in Great Britain so that those species which are suitable can provide targets for those who shoot.
The attitude of the hon. Member for Harborough was well displayed when we debated the goldeneye. During that debate I said that the bird did not make particularly good eating, but the hon. Member for Harborough could not restrain himself. He had to assure the Committee that it was almost his main diet. I suggested then that that showed that his taste was deplorable. I believe that his speech tonight was deplorable. It maligned Opposition Members, who have not shown themselves to be opposed to shooting but who have given their first affection to conservation.
If the shooting fraternity had any sense they would strongly back the conservation movement. Many of them, including the Wildfowlers Association of Great Britain and Ireland, recognise more strongly than the hon. Member for Harborough does that conservation is important.
My point is that for waders this amendment would be a sensible rationalisation. Waders should command our concern, since their populations are declining, and the vast destruction of habitat which is occurring bodes ill for many species of wader, including the snipe. The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) and the hon. Member for Harborough are perhaps more aware than I am that the number of snipe is far smaller than it used to be and that, given a couple of bad winters and the continued destruction of the habitat, which so many Government supporters wish to encourage, by the latter part of the 1980s the snipe will be an extremely scarce bird.
Our attempt was to ensure that the snipe remained in abundance so that it could continue to be shot and perhaps eaten by the hon. Member for Harborough. We are more concerned than he is about the future of his leisure activity. But since he seems unconcerned about whether there will be snipe to be shot in the late 1980s we shall have to vote not for the lesser amendments, Nos. 6 and 7, but for amendment No. 5. If we are to go down, we shall go down with all guns firing rather than just a few.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

Division No. 265]
[9.25 pm


AYES


Allaun, Frank
Hardy, Peter


Anderson, Donald
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Homewood, William


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Hooley, Frank


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Howell, Rt Hon D.


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
John, Brynmor


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Lamond, James


Buchan, Norman
Leighton, Ronald


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Campbell, Ian
Litherland, Robert


Campbell-Savours, Dale
McCartney, Hugh


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Coleman, Donald
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Cowans, Harry
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Crowther, J. S.
Morton, George


Cryer, Bob
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Dalyell, Tam
Park, George


Davidson, Arthur
Pavitt, Laurie


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Dixon, Donald
Prescott, John


Dormand, Jack
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Rooker, J. W.


Dunn, James A.
Sever, John


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Silkin, Rt Hon J, (Deptford)


Eadie, Alex
Skinner, Dennis


Eastham, Ken
Snape, Peter


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Spearing, Nigel


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Stoddart, David


Ewing, Harry
Tinn, James


Faulds, Andrew
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Fitch, Alan
Welsh, Michael


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
White, Frank R.


Fookes, Miss Janet
Whitehead, Phillip


Foster, Derek
Whitlock, William


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Winnick, David


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John



Golding, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Graham, Ted
Mr. James Hamilton and


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Frank Haynes.


NOES


Alexander, Richard
Cockeram, Eric


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Colvin, Michael


Beith, A. J.
Cope, John


Bendall, Vivian
Corrie, John


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Cranborne, Viscount


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Crouch, David


Berry, Hon Anthony
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)


Best, Keith
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Biggs-Davison, John
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Blackburn, John
Eggar, Tim


Braine, Sir Bernard
Farr, John


Bright, Graham
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Brinton, Tim
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Brittan, Leon
Forman, Nigel


Brooke, Hon Peter
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Goodlad, Alastair


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Gow, Ian


Bryan, Sir Paul
Gray, Hamish


Budgen, Nick
Greenway, Harry


Butcher, John
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Grist, Ian


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Gummer, John Selwyn


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hamilton, Hon A.


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n )
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Chapman, Sydney
Hampson, Dr Keith


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Hannam, John


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hawksley, Warren


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hayhoe, Barney


Clegg, Sir Walter
Heddle, John





Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Howells, Geraint
Parris, Matthew


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Pawsey, James


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Percival, Sir Ian


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Pollock, Alexander


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Prior, Rt Hon James


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Proctor, K. Harvey


Kershaw, Anthony
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Kimball, Marcus
Rossi, Hugh


King, Rt Hon Tom
Royle, Sir Anthony


Knight, Mrs Jill
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lamont, Norman
Scott, Nicholas


Lee, John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Le Marchant, Spencer
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Skeet, T. H. H.


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Speed, Keith


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Speller, Tony


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Spence, John


Luce, Richard
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Lyell, Nicholas
Stanbrook, Ivor


Macfarlane, Neil
Stevens, Martin


MacGregor, John
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Madel, David
Tebbit, Norman


Marlow, Tony
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Mates, Michael
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Mather, Carol
Thompson, Donald


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Thornton, Malcolm


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Mellor, David
Trippier, David


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Viggers, Peter


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Waddington, David


Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Miscampbell, Norman
Wall, Patrick


Moate, Roger
Ward, John


Monro, Hector
Watson, John


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Wells, Bowen


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Wheeler, John


Murphy, Christopher
Wickenden, Keith


Myles, David
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Neale, Gerrard
Wolfson, Mark


Newton, Tony
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Normanton, Tom



Onslow, Cranley
Tellers for the Noes:


Osborn, John
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 3

AREAS OF SPECIAL PROTECTION

Mr. King: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 4, line 41, leave out 'or'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 9 and 10.

Mr. King: These are clarifying amendments.
Clause 3 provides for the designation of areas of special protection. Subsection (5) is intended to provide that, if there are objections to the designation of an area as one in which all birds except those in part II of schedule 2 can receive special protection, the order cannot be made. The provisions are designed to give statutory backing to voluntary efforts.
The subsection as drafted might have been held to have the effect of keeping in force an objection that had been withdrawn, which would mean that unless the whole consultation process was repeated, an order could not be made. The three amendments remove this uncertainty.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 9, in page 4, line 42 leave out 'at' and insert 'no objections thereto have been made by any of those owners or occupiers before'.

No. 10, in page 5, line 1 leave out from 'advertisement' to end of line 2 and insert
'or
(c) any such objections so made have been withdrawn.'. —[Mr. King.]

Clause 5

PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN METHODS OF KILLING OR TAKING WILD BIRDS

Mr. King: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 6, line 26 after second 'bird', insert 'or other animal'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 28 and 29.

Mr. King: These amendments seek to pick up a point that has been made to us. The Bill seeks to prohibit the use of decoys and the use of a live bird that is hobbled or blind in order to kill or take any wild bird. It is equally appropriate that the provision should apply to any live animal and vice versa.
Amendment No. 29 clears up a drafting error and deletes the reference to "wild birds or" on page 13, line 33. I commend the amendments to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 167, in page 7, line 1, leave out 'paragraph (a) of subsection (1)' and insert 'subsection (1)(a)'.

Clause 8

PROTECTION OF CAPTIVE BIRDS

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I beg to move amendment No. 216, in page 10, line 26, at end insert
'or
(c) While that bird is either in the process of being conveyed or exhibited at an exhibition or show.'.
I do not wish to drag out the proceedings on this amendment. Suffice it to say that I am sure that all hon. Members will welcome the debate that has taken place in the past few weeks on the representations that have been made to us not only by bird fanciers but by those who are disturbed by the conditions in which such birds are kept. The Government may well come forward with an acceptable compromise later.

Mr. King: The principle behind the amendment is acceptable to the Government. There was concern about the protection given to birds and about the size of the cage in which they might be put for the purpose of exhibitions and shows. The Government have made it clear that they had no intention, and that there was no proposal, to take any early action on this matter. However, it has given rise to considerable concern. Unfortunately, the amendment lacks one important qualification. I have submitted a manuscript amendment and I understand that the Opposition are aware of it. With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should seek to move the manuscript

amendment if the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) was willing to withdraw his amendment. I hope that the House will be prepared to approve the manuscript amendment.

Mr. Dalyell: There has been an enormous volume of correspondence about this matter. I am not complaining, because I know that accidents can happen. I do not wish to blame particular civil servants, because they may not be at fault. However, the Minister will understand that the proverbial fear of something awful was instilled in many people by the reports that appeared in Cage and Aviary Birds. They put the fear of death into innocent people about £2,000 penalties, imprisonment and heaven knows what. How on earth did that trade magazine get hold of the dire penalties that created such a stir among many of our constituents? Why did not the Department of the Environment give its views to Cage and Aviary Birds, as is normally the case? Perhaps there is some explanation.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I support what my hon. Friend has just said. It is sad that so much alarm was caused, but the Government have made a welcome concession. I am sure that great sighs of relief will be heaved by many ordinary exhibitors. Exhibiting birds is a hobby of many people.

Mr. King: Unfortunately, I missed the edition of Cage and Aviary Birds in question.
I am grateful for what the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) said. This is not the only legislation over which considerable alarm has been generated outside the Government by people speculating on certain aspects going way beyond the Government's intentions or anything that has been said. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman meant it, but there was a slight implication in what he said that the Government had generated the fear and alarm. His question should properly be directed to those who sought to start an unfounded rumour. It concerned a technical possibility that was never the Government's intention.
Our concession will not be greeted with wild approval by any canary, budgerigar or any other bird, because it means that for a limited period they will be more confined than they might otherwise have been. But the Government think the concession reasonable, in view of the interest of aviculturists and the disturbance that would have been caused.
We considered the matter and found that we had two options. One was to restate our clear assurance, given frequently in correspondence, that there was no proposal to do what was feared. However, because of the concern, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I decided at a late stage that it was better to put the assurance on the record, in the form of a manuscript amendment. I hope that it will command the support of the whole House.

Mr. Dalyell: The Minister must be the only Member of Parliament who did not see the relevant edition of Cage and Aviary Birds.

Amendment negatived.

Manuscript amendment proposed: in page 10, line 24, after "means" insert
(aa) while that bird is being shown for the purposes of any public exhibition or competition if the time during which the bird is kept or confined for those purposes does not in the aggregate exceed 72 hours:"—[Mr. King.]

Mr. Campbell-Savours: In the absence of the change in the law that was previously outlined, has there been any consultation with the National Council for Agriculture about introducing a code of conduct whereby it can monitor the arrangements under which birds are ferried to exhibitions and held in exhibition cages for up to 72 hours? The Government having made the concession, the House would like to think that the spirit in which the original representations were made was understood, and that at least the organisation concerned will ensure that the enxieties are fully met.

Mr. Denis Howell: I wish to express appreciation to the Minister for taking the unusual step of producing the manuscript amendment to meet what was clearly genuine concern felt by many people who legitimately exhibit birds in shows and who have to convey them around the country.
Whatever we think about how the relevant trade paper portrayed the matter, parliamentarians should be grateful that close attention to what we do is paid by people with a great interest and whose hobby it is. Most of them have a great regard and affection for the bird life that they rear and cultivate. Those who have been to shows find that the bird section is of great public interest. It gives great pleasure to many people.
9.45 pm
It is right that the owners and breeders should be protected with regard to the size of cage necessary for transportation and showing. Those who have seen some of the cages since the controversy began will know that the owners pride themselves on their adequacy. The last thing that they wish to do is to cause any suffering to the birds. I am glad that the Government have acted on this matter, and that the House is united. This will be of great satisfaction to those who drew the matter to our attention, without which we may not have got it right. I hope that the birds' societies will long flourish and continue their harmless pursuits and pleasures.

Mr. King: The Government are in close consultation with the agriculturists. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) referred to the NCA. We are anxious that its view should be understood. It will become clear in later amendments that we are concerned with the need for it to present its case effectively. The hon. Gentleman's point was fair, and we shall consider it.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2

BIRDS WHICH MAY BE KILLED OR TAKEN

Mr. Hardy: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 60, leave out line 18.
I confess that, unlike most of the amendments that I have tabled and those which I supported in Committee, I do not recommend the protection of moorhens on the ground of conservation. I wish to make that clear because of our recent debate on the snipe. I accept that the moorhen is common and. apart from the Highlands of Scotland, widely distributed.
The moorhen should not appear in schedule 2. Many of the birds listed there provide sporting opportunity for shooters. No doubt all of them will have been shot at some time or another by the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr). Presumably, all of them will have been eaten.

Perhaps he will tell us whether the moorhen tastes nice. I cannot recall ever having consumed one. Of course, the hon. Gentleman eats goldeneye frequently. But I am sure that he would agree that the moorhen does not provide a sporting challenge.
I have not mentioned the coot because, not being as objective as I should, I find the moorhen a more attractive bird. I do not believe that any Conservative Member would wish to shoot a moorhen. My constituents who shoot regularly have never shot a moorhen. Perhaps the sporting people of Rother Valley are more sensitive than some Conservative Members. As the bird does not provide a sporting challenge, it is inappropriate to list it in schedule 2.
I recognise that the moorhen is common, and I suppose that it can usefully be taken for food or used for sport. But I do not believe that it is sufficiently common to provide an adequate contribution to our national diet. It does not offer such a nuisance and injury to the agricultural interest that it should be drastically controlled. Therefore, its inclusion in part I of schedule 2 is scarcely justifiable. It will be interesting to hear not only the Minister's comments, but those of the hon. Member for Harborough.

Mr. Farr: I listened with interest to what the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) said. However, I do not consider this to be a good amendment, because the moorhen does much damage to other bird life.
Although the numbers of moorhen or waterhen have been static—in fact, they increased slightly in 1980—they are selfish and aggressive birds as well as difficult for other birds to live with.
Anyone who has a small pond at the bottom of his garden knows that the moorhen will drive all the other water birds away. On large stretches of water, in hard weather, if any feed is to be had, it is the moorhen that will get it and the duck that will go without.
There is no evidence before the advisory committee of any shortage of moorhen in the country. I understand that there are about 500,000 pairs in Great Britain, and there is no indication of a notable decline in number. I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend will resist this trivial amendment.

Mr. King: I cannot commend the amendment to the House, not because I do not have sympathy with the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy), but because there is some doubt as to where the moorhen should be placed in the Bill.
This is a conservation Bill, but there is no conservation argument in respect of the moorhen. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) found 200,000 more pairs than my Department found, but the difference between 500,000 and 300,000 pairs may be a degree of hyperbole from my hon. Friend and his advisers.
The point made by my hon. Friend is valid. Moorhens do a lot of damage. An argument that could have been advanced was whether the moorhen should be placed in part I of schedule 2 or in part II, which lists those birds that can be shot by authorised persons at all times. We have taken the view that the moorhen does not cause the scale of damage to justify its being considered as a pest.
However, I agree with the hon. Member for Rother Valley that there may be something to distinguish the moorhen from the obvious sporting birds listed in part I. Having said that, I do not feel that there should be any


change. This is a conservation Bill, and on conservation grounds there is no case for the removal of the moorhen from the schedule.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am surprised that the Minister has said that there are no conservation grounds for protecting this bird. I accept his argument in the context of the whole of Great Britain. However, he should consider this matter in terms of particular localities and areas.
In many areas, particularly areas of water on the urban fringes, there is a general shortage of birds, and the moorhen gives a lot of pleasure to youngsters who watch it bobbing about with its young. They feel rightly distressed when they see it being shot at by slightly older people with airguns. There are good grounds for conserving it in such areas. Our wildlife should not be concentrated in a few countryside areas, but should be spread as widely and usefully as possible.
I see no justification for shooting this bird. I do not believe that anyone could remotely call it sport. However, it seems that, if it cannot be justified in sporting terms, it is justified because it might eat the same food as birds which people prefer to have for sport. I am therefore disappointed with the Government's attitude.

Mr. Dalyell: The poor old moorhen is not really a quarry species.

Mr. Tim Sainsbury: indicated dissent—

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman may think that it is, but it is not. If it does damage, why cannot that be dealt with within the licensing provision in clause 16? In the meantime, I shall treasure the thought of vast sections of the Department of the Environment looking for moorhens to ascertain whether the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) is 200,000 out in his calculations. Some of us might think that looking for moorhens might be a better employment for some in the Department than raiding local authorities.
I hope that the Minister will be good enough to respond to the debate. I inserted the second part of my speech to give the Minister time to think of an answer to the first part, which concerned clause 16 and the licensing provision.

Mr. King: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was merely making a debating point. I did not want to be discourteous by not responding. We are talking about damage and the habits of the moorhen. We are not discussing localised concentrations of moorhens. My observations tell me that moorhens tend to drive other waterfowl away. That was the purpose of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr). That is not an argument that will be met by licensed or unlicensed moorhens.

Mr. Hardy: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 3

BIRDS WHICH MAY BE SOLD

Mr. Hardy: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 61, leave out line 14.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 15, in page 61, leave out line 15.
No. 16, in page 61, leave out line 18.

Mr. Hardy: The amendments would remove the jackdaw, the jay and the barn owl from part 1 of schedule 3. I find it incredible that people should want to keep the jay in captivity. It is an extremely beautiful creature. It is obviously timid, as it lives among trees and is not frequently seen away from woodland. It is a beautiful bird that is best left to look beautiful in the wild. It should be respected rather more than it is by those who believe that it is destructive. It is a member of the crow family and it can be a nuisance to sporting interests. However, it is sufficiently attractive to justify a reasonable level of tolerance.
I view the jackdaw with some suspicion. Many years ago, when I first started teaching, a boy in my class had a pet jackdaw. I foolishly told him that he could bring it to school. The thing came to school frequently and I gradually came to regard it as a confounded nuisance. It exhibited the tendency to steal. It could not resist any small, bright object. Long ago, and well before the present levels of vicious inflation and economic weaknesses that we currently experience, the bird took 6d pieces. That was when they had some value. It also took penknives and staples. I came to the conclusion that it was a bad influence on my boys and I tried to persuade the young man to take it home and keep it there. It is scarcely reasonable to encourage people to keep jackdaws, as they so often exhibit a dishonest streak. These birds are scarcely suitable for captivity.
I said in Committee that the rook should be deleted from the schedule and the Minister accepted the suggestion. The jay and the jackdaw are members of the same family. If the rook is removed, it may be logical to remove the jay and the jackdaw as well.
I should like to ask the Minister a question, as the barn owl may be involved in this matter. One of my constituents, Mr. David Owen, of Maltby near Rotherham, does a great deal of good work. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to this query. In the last few months Mr. Owen has released six barn owls, nine kestrels and 12 tawny owls, which—

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Wildlife and Countryside Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Gummer.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee) again considered.

Mr. Hardy: In the last few months, as I was saying, Mr. Owen has released six barn owls, nine kestrels and 12 tawny owls. In the last few years he has taken, cured where they have been injured or sick and tended, birds of that kind. He has released large numbers, including a honey buzzard, so that a honey buzzard is now breeding close to my constituency as a result of that gentleman's sterling efforts. He takes the injured hawks, owls and falcons from the police or the RSPCA, or individuals advised by those bodies, and wherever possible he releases them in the wild.
I believe that the House will regard Mr. Owen's efforts as commendable. He has enriched the fauna of the Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire area significantly over the last decade. I am pleased to have Mr. Owen doing that good work in my constituency. I hope that he will not find his work affected, in regard to caring for and releasing barn owls or any other species. I hope that the Minister can take this opportunity to give an assurance that that commendable activity can be maintained.
The barn owl is listed in schedule 1. That suggests that it is a relatively rare breeding bird in Britain. The Minister will agree that it breeds regularly in captivity. It is possible that birds currently held in captivity could provide for a self-sustaining population, given a degree of co-operation between the breeders, although that may not exist at present.
Barn owls are regularly advertised for sale in a number of journals. Those birds are usually close-ringed, implying that they have been bred in captivity. The Protection of Birds Act requires that barn owls offered for sale are aviary-bred and close-ringed. There is evidence that barn owls that have been ringed illegally are being advertised and sold. They are ringed closely in the nest in the wild and then taken into captivity. The owner then pretends that they have been legally bred and, therefore, that he can legally sell them. Although the barn owl breeds regularly in captivity, the level of abuse in the close ringing of birds in the nest in the wild, coupled with the fact that the bird is listed in schedule 1, warrants the removal of the barn owl from this schedule.
It will be interesting to hear the Minister's comments on those three species and how he can explain the illogicality of leaving the jay and the jackdaw in the schedule, now that the rook has been removed. I hope that he will respond favourably, particularly in regard to the barn owl. I await his comments on my constituent Mr. Owen and his ability to carry on his commendable activity.

Mr. King: I shall respond to the amendments. We seem also to be discussing amendment No. 18, on the barn owl, which has not been selected, if I am correct.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Amendment No. 18 is a Government amendment.

Mr. King: That cannot be the amendment on the barn owl. We shall check that. I believe that line 18 refers to the barn owl. There has been a technical hitch. I think that one of my advisers cannot read the difference between lines 17 and 18. We shall return to that matter.
As an aside, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) for drawing my attention to the fact that the proper name for the jay is garrulus glandarius, which seems a suitable name for a lot of people whom I know.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Name them.

Mr. King: One can think of one or two members of the House to whom it might apply.
This is a difficult series of amendments. We are talking of removing from the list of birds that can be kept in captivity those that can be taken from the wild without licence and that can be shot at any time—those for which there is no protection whatsoever. We are seeking, none the less, to impose a special restraint, in that those birds

may not be kept in captivity, notwithstanding the fact that the only birds that could be kept in captivity in that way would be close-ringed and would, therefore, have had to be bred in captivity.
Difficult issues are involved. I believe that there are differing views in the House on the pursuit of aviculture. The position of aviculturists is a matter of controversy among hon. Members. So we do not approve of the pastime; others believe that it is perfectly respectable and well merited.
The Government are concerned that some aspects of the Bill may be seen by aviculturists as an attack on their interests. That is not the intention. Far from being an attack on their hobby or pastime, the Bill is the first serious attempt to give it permanent and defensible status and to make clear that it operates within clearly defined rules.
The amendments of the hon. Member for Rother Valley affect those difficult issues. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to remove from the list birds for which otherwise it would appear that society has no regard. It is a difficult area of judgment. It is not clear what the numbers would be. The advisory committee considered it reasonable not to put any impediment in the way of keeping those species, even though the records are sparse.
The hon. Gentleman could argue that there is no clear logic in the present position. However, we are trying to strike a reasonable balance in the pursuit of aviculture, and believe that we should give aviculturists the benefit of the doubt. The list concerns only birds that can be shown to be ringed and bred in captivity. Although the argument may not be enormously convincing, I hope that he will feel able to ask leave to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Hardy: Would the Minister deal with the point that I raised about Mr. Owen?

Mr. King: There was a slight technical hitch, and it was thought that the amendment referred to the magpie and not the barn owl. It would seem an admirable achievement for Mr. Ower to have contributed to the wildlife in the area through his breeding success.

Mr. Hardy: My amendment deals with the barn owl, and I hope that that matter can be resolved.
Mr. Owen and people like him tend birds, particularly rare ones, such as owls, hawks and falcons, which are difficult to release in the wild if they are to survive. People like Mr. Owen require an assurance that they can carry on with that activity, despite the fact that the birds may not be ringed and may not have to be licensed. Perhaps the Minister would consider that point and write to me, so that Mr. Owen and people like him can be reassured that they are not breaking the law. If the Minister will agree to that, it would be discourteous of me to press the amendment.

Mr. King: I certainly give that assurance.

Mr. Hardy: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9

PROTECTION OF CERTAIN WILD ANIMALS

Amendments made: No. 18, in page 10, line 41, after 'any', insert 'live or dead'.
No. 19, in page 11, leave out lines 2 to 4.
No. 20, in page 11, line 5, at end insert—


'(2A) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under subsection (2) if he shows that—

(a) the animal had not been killed or taken, or had been killed or taken otherwise than in contravention of the relevant provisions; or
(b) the animal or other thing in his possession or control had been sold (whether to him or any other person) otherwise than in contravention of those provisions;

and in this subsection "the relevant provisions" means the provisions of this Part and of the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975.'.—[Mr. King.]

Clause 10

EXCEPTIONS TO S. 9

Mr. King: I beg to move Amendment No. 21, in page 11, line 34, leave out 'and' and insert '(1A)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 22, 23 and 24.

Mr. King: These amendments are concerned with the protection of bats and the clarification of a certain situation. It is a way of protecting bats, which are already protected in legislation and under the schedule, without infringing too much the rights of the householder. I believe that the amendments are helpful in achieving that.

Mr. Dalyell: As the bat man on the Bill, who moved earlier amendments relating to bats, it would be ungracious if I did not accept that the Government amendments seem to fulfil what was semi-promised in Committee. I wish to thank Dr. Stebbings and others who briefed us so fully on this matter. I recognise that there is a problem for the householder who may feel that his living accommodation is affected. It seems to me that the best solution has been arrived at.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. King: I beg to move Amendment No. 168, in page 11, leave out lines 38 to 42.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 169, 170 and 175.

Mr. King: These amendments deal with defences for the killing or injuring of wild animals under schedule 5 and as listed in the amendments. This seems to meet a point that arose in Committee and was of considerable concern in another place, deriving from the original wording "urgently necessary" as a defence. I think that there was some misunderstanding that the Government's removal of that phrase in Committee upstairs was based on some agricultural or other ground or sporting consideration. I make it clear that there was strong legal pressure to the effect that the words were otiose and the phrase "urgently necessary" had no meaning in law.
None the less, we recognised the concern implicit in the phrase "urgently necessary". The amendments seek to include the further qualification of that defence so that
an authorised person shall not be guilty of an offence by reason of…killing
for the purpose of
preventing serious damage to livestock
—and so on, but
an authorised person shall not be entitled to rely on the defence…as respects any action taken at any time if it had become apparent, before that time, that that action would prove necessary".

It is an attempt to introduce that qualification to what otherwise might be too broad a defence.
I hope that the House will agree that we have struck the correct balance.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 169, in page 12 leave out lines 12 to 19 and insert—
'(3) Notwithstanding anything in section 9, an authorised person shall not be guilty of an offence by reason of the killing or injuring of a wild animal included in Schedule 5 if he shows that his action was necessary for the purpose of preventing serious damage to livestock, foodstuffs for livestock, crops, vegetables, fruit, growing timber or any other form of property or to fisheries. '.
No. 22, in line 21, after 'subsection', insert '(1A) or'.
No. 23, in line 22, after 'in', insert 'the living area of'.
No. 24, in line 23, after second 'the', insert 'proposed action or'.
No. 170, in line 25, at end insert—
'(5) An authorised person shall not be entitled to rely on the defence provided by subsection (3) as respects any action taken at any time if it had become apparent, before that time, that that action would prove necessary for the purpose mentioned in that subsection and either

(a) a licence under section 16 authorising that action had not been applied for as soon as reasonably practicable after that fact had become apparent; or
(b) an application for such a licence had been determined.'.—[Mr. King.]

Schedule 5

ANIMALS WHICH ARE PROTECTED

Mr. Hardy: I beg to move amendment No. 25, in page 63, line 31, at end insert—
'Butterfly, Purple Emperor'. 'Apatura iris'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 26, in page 63, line 32, at end insert—
'Butterfly, Swallowtail'. 'Papilio machaon'.
No. 27, in page 64, line 12, at end insert—
'Red Band Fish'. 'Capola Rubescens'.
No. 257. in line 14. at end insert—
'Smelt' 'Osmerus eperlanus'.

Mr. Hardy: It is rather odd that these four amendments deal with two butterflies and two fish. I shall deal first with the butterflies. The two butterflies that the amendments seek to protect are the purple emperor and the swallowtail. The purple emperor is one of the largest and most magnificent of British butterflies, with a lovely irridescent purple sheen showing in certain lights in the wings of the male, but not in those of the larger, browner female. It is rather rare and confined to the larger oakwoods of the southern half of England. As a Yorkshireman, I feel that I am particularly generous in seeking to ensure that that creature, which enriches some small parts of the southern counties, should be preserved. But we have a national responsibility, and for that reason I have tabled the amendment.
10.15 pm
The purple emperor is a beautiful butterfly. Its numbers are declining rapidly. The House has so far attempted to protect only one butterfly, and that was in the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975. The large blue was then listed. Unfortunately, since 1975 the large blue may have become extinct. It would probably


have become extinct anyway, because of the disappearance of its habitat. One hopes that we shall not see the purple emperor go the same way. This large butterfly is an extremely beautiful creature and I hope that we can assist it to survive.
The same can be said of the swallowtail, which is confined to the Norfolk Broads. We learnt in Committee of the enormous destruction and change of habitat that are taking place there. It is notable that attempts are being made to reintroduce the swallowtail to Wicken fen in Cambridgeshire. It is an interesting butterfly. It flies in a strong flapping manner in May and June—a unique flight pattern. The female, which is larger than the male, deposits the yellow eggs singly on milk parsley, which is a plant found only in fen country. That is the reason for the limited range of the species. But it is a beautiful creature which should be protected. I hope that the Minister will accept that those two creatures can properly be added to this broadly based Bill.
The same may be true of the two species of fish to which I now wish to refer. The smelt is one of the grayling and trout family. It was once extremely common, and until the middle of this century there was substantial commercial fishing for smelt. But, unfortunately, perhaps because of pollution, the smelt has declined in numbers quite dramatically and can now be found with any certainty only in the Cree estuary in Scotland. The great fall in the smelt population certainly justifies its inclusion in the Bill.
I said that the smelt is to be found in the Cree area, but in the middle of the nineteenth century the smelt was taken in great numbers in the Firth of Forth, particularly in the autumn. The smelt was frequently encountered in the area near Stirling bridge, but the last fishery for smelt ceased to be a viable concern 30 years ago. Today the smelt is exceedingly rare, but since it is an attractive small fish, and since it ought to survive, perhaps to recover as our coastal waters become cleaner and more wholesome, the suggestion that it be included in the Bill to give it a chance to survive seems commendable.
I also suggest that the House should approve the protection of the red band fish. There is a spelling mistake. Its Latin name is cepola—not capola—rubescens. This fish is very unusual, in that it is a burrowing fish and is probably restricted to the coastal waters around the island of Lundy.
One of the reasons why I suggest that the fish should be protected is that there is an interesting argument about its habits and characteristics. For example, it is suggested that after its first year of life the female undergoes sexual inversion and becomes male. The latest evidence from academics who have studied the fish disputes that theory, but I am sure that the House will feel that it would be worthwile for the red band fish to survive at least a little longer, so that we can establish beyond doubt whether it automatically undergoes that sex transformation. If it does, it would seem to be entirely in accord with the social arrangements of the human beings occupying part of our islands in the 1980s.
Whether or not the Minister decides that the Bill should be expanded to cover smelt, which is declining rapidly, or the red band, which is already rare, I hope that we shall have an assurance that any failure to respond favourably to the amendments does not mean that the Bill is to be restricted to consideration of birds and mammals.
Given the commitment that I believe we have to marine nature reserves, it is important that there is protection for the rare and perhaps endangered species in our waters. Since I trust that Lundy will be listed as a marine nature reserve and will receive substantial protection, it seems appropriate that the red band fish should appeal to a blue Minister.
I also trust that there will be another attempt to protect a rare butterfly. The attempt to save the large blue was unsuccessful, but the intention was admirable and the House was justified in providing the legal opportunity. I hope that the Minister will agree that the purple emperor and the swallowtail should be given a similar chance. Let us hope that efforts to safeguard the environment in Norfolk and the oakwoods of the southern counties will give both species an opportunity to survive.

Mr. Ennals: I wish to add only a few sentences to what my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) has said. I cannot refer to the red band fish, but I wish to mention the swallowtail butterfly.
The butterfly faces extinction on the Norfolk broads. Indeed, a number of traditional species of wildlife face extinction as a result of the change in the habitat in the Broads, which we shall discuss later. One of the saddest losses would be that of the beautiful swallowtail.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will accept all four amendments propounded by my hon. Friend, and I certainly hope that the swallowtail, whose traditional natural habitat is Norfolk and its marshlands, will be protected.

Mr. Dalyell: I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) said in hoping that Lundy will be one of the first half dozen marine nature reserves.
My hon. Friend referred to the smelt and the waters of the Forth off my constituency. The sooner smelt and other species can be successfully reintroduced, the happier we shall be. Over the past 50 years the ecology of the Firth of Forth has been altered by developments at Grangemouth, though great efforts are being made to do something about the waters of the Forth.
The Labour-controlled West Lothian district council has been extremely good about sewage. The city of Edinburgh, which was ratepayer-controlled for many years, has been referred to as a city that was always powdering its face—in the shape of the Edinburgh festival—but often forgot to wipe its bottom—the sewage that went into the Forth and was responsible for the tragedy of the smelt and many other species. That was an example of municipal intransigence.

Mr. Home Robertson: My hon. Friend gives credit to the Labour-controlled West Lothian district council. I draw his attention to the fact that the excellent sewage treatment in Lothian region is the work of Lothian regional council but that it is liable to be brought to a rapid halt as a result of the antics of the Secretary of State for Scotland in the House next week.

Mr. Dalyell: My instinct tells me that it would be safer to go from Lothian regional council to the problems of the butterfly. I am conscious, along with colleagues, of the fact that one of the matters under-discussed in Committee was the whole butterfly position, well briefed though hon. Members were by Dr. David Lonsdale and his colleagues of the Entomological Society. There is no doubt that the


introduction of Italian rye grass on a large scale to agricultural land, in preference to the ancient grasses of Britain, is more profitable in the short or medium-term to farmers, but it is lethal for the butterfly population and its varieties.

Mr. Peter Mills: The hon. Gentleman must not make such unkind remarks about a very fine grass. He should consider the amounty of milk that is produced from rye grass for all our cities and towns. It NA us an important step forward in the production of milk in this country.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should be grateful if hon. Members would return to discussing butterflies and fish.

Mr. Dalyell: I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would rule me out of order if I were to discuss milk going into EEC surpluses. I am saying only that it is a pity that so much rye grass has been introduced. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) tells me to get on with my speech. When one considers all the grassland in Small Heath, I think I should leave that subject. There is, however, a serious problem concerning butterflies, exacerbated by the rye grass. Some hon. Members are deeply concerned about the interests of butterflies. I support my hon. Friend.

Mr. Monro: There have been some interesting constituency interventions that I shall try to avoid. I am, however, grateful to the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) for raising the issue. The hon. Gentleman has further amendments to schedules concerning plants and items that might be added to them. I am advised by the NCC that the purple emperor butterfly is more common than generally supposed. It is found locally distributed in the southern counties of England. While it is attractive to collectors, collecting itself poses no great threat to its survival. It has the habit of flying at the tops of trees, especially oaks, which makes collecting somewhat difficult. There is no reason to give it special protection, because there is no indication that its population is in decline. I would not wish the hon. Gentleman to press the amendment. On the advice of the NCC, there is no conservation problem.
In regard to the swallowtail butterfly, in respect of which the hon. Gentleman was supported by his right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals), the NCC has considered the matter carefully. The butterfly is confined to the marshes of the Norfolk Broads. It is in decline. Its survival is likely to be endangered unless conservation measures are taken. It is also an attractive target for collectors. The advice of the NCC is that it should be protected. I therefore accept the amendment.
Next is the red band fish. I was interested in what the hon. Gentleman had to say. I am advised by the NCC that the red band fish, which occurs in deep waters, is fairly common. There is no conservation reason why it should be afforded the real protection that inclusion in schedule 5 would bring.
The criterion that the Secretary of State will employ when considering further whether an animal is to be added to schedule 5 is whether it is in danger of extinction in Great Britain or is likely to become so endangered unless

conservation measures are taken. In this instance, there is not sufficient evidence to put the red band fish in the schedule, so I am afraid that there is no luck there.
10.30 pm
The fourth amendment concerns smelt. I listened with interest and some concern to what the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) said about the Forth. Many of us have known about that situation for some time, but we are glad that it has improved, thanks to the substantial grants from a Conservative Government. The NCC says that smelt are very common in some estuaries and do not need protection. The special protection that could be given to marine fish—I do not recommend it in this case—would create difficulties for fishermen who could catch one inadvertently. I can tell the hon. Member for Rother Valley that the NCC informs us that smelt is very common and is therefore not worthy of protection in the schedule. I accept amendment No. 26, covering the swallowtail butterfly, but I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press his other three amendments.

Mr. Hardy: I suppose that one out of four is not bad for this Government. That may sound a little ungracious, and I do not wish to appear in that light, since the swallowtail butterfly deserves protection. I am sure that people in East Anglia will welcome that, so I am grateful to the Minister.
I wish to ask one question. If the theory that the red band fish changes sex after its first year is correct, clearly its population will enter a marked decline. If so, the fish will become scarce, and perhaps the Nature Conservancy Council might then agree to keep the matter under careful scrutiny to ensure that sex changes do not allow the population to decline to the point at which the species disappears.
The evidence that the Minister quoted regarding smelt does not do justice to the case. The smelt has declined astonishingly in the past 30 or 40 years. If that decline continues, even if it is not endangered in 1981, survival is likely to be threatened before the 1980s are far advanced. I hope that the Minister will agree that the NCC should look again at both these species within the next 12 months or two years to assess whether the decline has continued, and, if it has, whether smelt should be added to the schedule.
However, I shall not press the matter at this stage. I am grateful to the Minister for the concession on the swallowtail butterfly, and I am happy not to move the other three amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 26, in page 63, line 32, at end insert—
'Butterfly, Swallowtail'. 'Papilio machaon'.—[Mr. Hardy.]

Clause 11

PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN METHODS OF KILLING OR TAKING WILD ANIMALS

Amendment made: No. 28, in page 12, line 37, after 'mammal', insert 'or bird'.—[Mr. Heseltine.]

Mr. Hardy: I beg to move amendment No. 267, in page 12, line 46, at end insert


'and including without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, any such substance which emits poisonous gas or vapour'.
I hope that the Minister will say that the amendment will make a marked improvement to the Bill and that its intentions are admirable. In order to avoid inflicting any unnecessary gas on the House, as we still have a great deal of ground to cover I am happy to move the amendment with those few words.

Mr. Monro: The matter is completely covered by subsection (2)(c)(iv), and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Hardy: I do not have time to check that, but I accept the Minister's word and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, be leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): I should point out that amendment No. 241 should refer to the "second 'of'", as there are two in line 20.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move amendment No. 241, in page 13, line 20 after second 'of', insert
'protecting species on a regional basis or'.
It has been suggested by the Opposition Front Bench that I have about three minutes to move the amendment. If the Government were prepared to accept it I should not need even the three minutes.
There have been many suggestions that we shall not soon see another Bill on wildlife and the countryside, and that this Bill may have to last for 10 years or more. The Government have accepted that it will be difficult to find parliamentary time for further legislation and that it is important to make the Bill as flexible as possible.
In subsection (3) the Government take powers for the Secretary of State to vary, to comply with international obligations, the means of killing animals that are legal or illegal. I have always argued that we have a duty to try to conserve animals, plants and birds, so that there are some examples of each left in the world. But we also have a duty to try to ensure that in as many areas as possible those species are available for people to look at. Therefore, it is reasonable that from time to time we should consider conservation matters not on an international or United Kingdom basis but on the basis of a region and a particular problem in it.
All that we are asking is for the Government to take powers to be flexible. Then, if it can be argued that in a particular region a particular animal is threatened by a particular method of killing, the Minister can add that method to the list of prohibited methods. He can do that by an order, subject to the procedures of the House, rather than have to wait for further legislation, for which it might be difficult to find time.

Mr. Monro: Under clause 22 the Secretary of State has immense powers to make changes to the schedules when he wishes, relative to particular areas or particular times of year, after proper parliamentary consultation. The hon. Gentleman's point about regional changes is completely covered by that clause. The hon. Gentleman has shown that there are good reasons for a regional basis for protection, but the amendment is not necessary, as the matter is already covered.

Mr. Bennett: Although clause 22 enables particular birds or animals to be added to the schedules it does not deal with the means of killing or taking them. Therefore,

the amendment is necessary. I am dealing with the ways in which it would be illegal to kill birds or animals, whereas the Minister is suggesting that we should simply add them to the protected schedule. That may well be going further than he or I would want.

Mr. Denis Howell: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett). However, you suggested, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there were two "ofs" in line 20. Perhaps you will look at line 20 again, as I can see only one. I should hate us to be caught out on a technicality.
I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. Clause 22, which gives the Minister power to vary schedules, has little to do with the issue of principle, namely, the reason why the Secretary of State may prohibit certain methods of killing or of taking wild animals. Under clause 11(3) the Secretary of State will take powers—which we agree with—to comply with international obligations. However, my hon. Friend is saying that in addition to complying with international obligations there may well be a need to protect species on a regional basis. Much of the debate suggests that certain species are in danger. Only a few minutes ago the Minister said that one of the species referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) was endangered in some parts of the country but was to be found in plentiful supply in other parts.
We attach great importance to protecting, our flora and fauna on a regional basis. If the Minister cannot accept the amendment, I suggest that the amendment be pressed to a Division, so that it can be incorporated in the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In order to avoid any misunderstanding, I should point out that the third word in line 20 is "of". It reads as follows:
The Secretary of State may, for the purpose of complying
and so on.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 67, Noes 128.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 11

PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN METHODS OF KILLING OR TAKING WILD ANIMALS

Amendment made: No. 29, in page 13, line 33, leave out 'wild birds or'.—[Mr. King.]

Clause 12

PROTECTION OF CERTAIN MAMMALS

Amendment made: No. 197, page 13, line 37, leave out clause 12.—[Mr. King.]

Schedule 7

AMENDMENTS OF THE DEER ACT 1963, THE CONSERVATION OF SEALS ACT 1970 AND THE BADGERS ACT 1973

Amendments made: No. 198, in page 65, leave out lines 14 to 16 and insert—

'The Ground Game Act 1880

(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 6 of the Ground Game Act 1880. it shall not be unlawful for the occupier of any land himself, or one other person authorised by him under section 1 of that Act, to use firearms for the purpose of killing ground game thereon between the expiration of the first hour after sunset and the commencement of the last hour before sunrise if (except where he has the exclusive right) the occupier has the written authority of the other person or one of the other persons entitled to kill and take the ground game on the land.

(2) In this paragraph "ground game" means hares and rabbits.

The Agriculture (Scotland) Act 1948

./(1) Notwithstanding the provision of section 50(1)(a) of the Agriculture (Scotland) (Scotland) Act 1948, it shall not be unlawful for the owner of the shooting rights on any land or any person holding those rights from him, or the occupier of any land (who may in writing nominate one other person), to use a firearm for the purpose of killing ground game thereon between the expiration of the first hour after sunset and the commencement of the last hour before sunrise, if (except where he has the exclusive right) he has the written authority of the other person or one of the other persons entitled to kill and take the ground game on the land.

(2) In this paragraph "ground game" means hares and rabbits.

The Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953

./1 At the end of subsection (2) of section (1) of the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 (penalty where dog worries livestock on agricultural land) there shall be inserted the words
"or

(c) being at large (that is to say not on a lead or otherwise under close control) in a field or enclosure in which there are sheep".

(2) After that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(2A) Subsection (2)(c) of this section shall not apply in relation to—

(a) a dog owned by, or in the charge of, the occupier of the field or enclosure or the owner of the sheep or a person authorised by either of those persons; or
(b) a police dog, a guide dog, a trained sheep dog, a working gun dog or a pack of hounds."

The Deer Act 1963'

No. 199, in page 65, line17, leave out '1963 Act' and insert 'Deer Act 1963'.
No. 200, in page 65, line 36, leave out 'the 1963' and insert 'that'.
No. 201, in page 67, line 11, leave out 'the 1963' and insert 'that'.
No. 202, in page 67, in line 14, leave out 'the 1963' and insert 'that'.
No. 203, in page 67, in line 25, leave out 'the 1963' and insert 'that'.
No. 204, in page 67, leave out lines 30 and 31 and insert—

'The Conservation of Seals Act 1970'.

No. 205, in page 67, line 32, leave out '1970 Act' and insert
'Conservation of Seals Act 1970'.—[Mr. King.]

Mr. King: I beg to move amendment No. 284, in page 67, line 44, leave out '(a) which' and insert 'which—(a)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 285, Government new clause 31—Duties of agriculture Ministers with respect to areas of special scientific interest—
'(1) Where an application for a grant under a scheme made under section 29 of the Agriculture Act 1970 (farm capital grants) is made as respects expenditure incurred or to be incurred for the purpose of activities on land notified under section 28(1) or land to which section 29(3) applies, the appropriate Minister—

(a) shall, so far as may be consistent with the purposes of the scheme and section 29 of the said Act of 1970, so exercise his functions thereunder as to further the conservation of the flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical features by reason of which the land is of special interest; and
(b) where the Nature Conservancy Council have objected to the making of the grant on the ground that the activities in question have destroyed or damaged or will destroy or damage that flora or fauna or those features, shall not make the grant except after considering the objection and, in the case of land in England, after consulting with the Secretary of State.
(2) Where, in consequence of an objection by the Council, an application for a grant as respects expenditure to be incurred is refused on the ground that the activities in question will have such an effect as is mentioned in subsection (1)(b), the Council shall, within three months of their receiving notice of the appropriate Minister's decision, offer to enter into, in the terms of a draft submitted to the applicant, an agreement under section 16 of the 1949 Act or section 15 of the 1968 Act—

(a) imposing restrictions as respects those activities; and
(b) providing for the making by them of payments to the applicant.
(3) In this section "the appropriate Minister" has the same meaning as in section 29 of the said Act of 1970.'.
and amendment (a) thereto, in subsection (2), line 17, leave out 'shall' and insert 'may'.
Government new clauses 32 and 33.
New clause 12—Duty to provide local authorities with lists of areas of special scientific interest.
New clause 13—Application under section 29 of Agriculture Act 1970.
New clause 29—Use of weedkillers.
Amendment No. 232, in clause 28, page 26, line 5, at end insert—
'and (c) to the Secretary of State D.O.E.'
Government amendment No. 214, in page 26, line 5, at end insert—
'(1A) Before giving a notification under subsection (1), the Council shall give notice to the persons mentioned in that subsection—

(a) setting out the proposed notification; and
(b) specifying the time (not being less than three months from the date of the giving of the notice) within which, and the manner in which, representations or objections with respect thereto may be made,

and shall consider any representations or objections duly made.
(1B) If, after reasonable inquiry has been made, the Council are satisfied that it is not practicable to ascertain the name or address of an owner or occupier of any land a notification or notice required to be served on him may be served by addressing it to him by the description "owner" or "occupier" of the land (describing it) and by affixing it to some conspicuous object or objects on the land.'

Amendment (b) thereto, at the end of paragraph (b) insert,
'subsection (1A) shall not apply to sites notified to Local Authorities prior to the passing of this Act'.
Amendment (c) thereto, at the end of paragraph (b) insert—
'A notification under subsection (1A) shall be deemed to have been a notification made under subsection (1) unless amended or revoked following representations or objections made to the council.'.
Amendment (d) thereto, at the end of paragraph (b) insert—
'(1AA) Objections under subsection (1A)(b) cannot be made relating to sites designated before the commencement of this Act.'.
Amendment No. 233, in page 26, line 10, at end insert
'or any activity that would disturb or harm any fauna listed under schedule 5 or flora listed under schedule 8.'.
Amendment No. 68, in page 26, line 10, at end insert—
'(c) A notification made under subsection (1) above, if not withdrawn before the expiration of a period of six months after the date upon which it was made, shall be registrable as a local land charge (in England and Wales) and shall be recorded in the registry of sasines (in Scotland).'.
Amendment No. 69, in page 26, line 10, at end insert—
'(A) The owner or occupier of any land notified under subsection (1)(b) shall not carry out on it any operation specified in the notification as being likely to destroy or damage its flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features or cause or permit the carrying out of such an operation, unless—

(a) one of them has given notice to the Council of a proposal to carry out the operation, specifying its nature and the land on which it is proposed to carry it out; and
(b) one of the conditions specified in subsection (2B) is fulfilled.

(2B) The said conditions are—

(a) that the operation is carried out with the council's written consent.
(b) that three months have expired from the giving of the notice under subsection (2A)(a).

Amendment No. 70, in page 26, line 10, at end insert—
'(3) The owner or occupier of any land notified under subsection (1)(b) shall not carry out on it any operation specified in the notfication as being likely to destroy or damage its flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features or cause or permit the carrying out of such an operation, unless

(a) one of them has given notice to the Council of a proposal to carry out the operation, specifying its nature and the land on which it is proposed to carry it out; and
(b) one of the conditions specified in subsection (4) is fulfilled.

(4) The said conditions are—

(a) that the operation is carried out with the Council's written consent;
(b) that three months have expired from the giving of the notice under subsection (3)(a);
(c) that the operation is carried out in accordance with the terms of an agreement under section 16 of the 1949 Act or section 15 of the 1968 Act.

(5) A person who, without reasonable excuse, contravenes subsection (3) shall be liable—on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500.
(6) It is a reasonable excuse in any event for a person to carry out an operation if—

(a) the operation was authorised by a planning permission granted on an application under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 or Part III of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972; or
(b) the operation was an emergency operation particulars of which (including details of the emergency) were notified to the Council as soon as practicable after the commencement of the operation.'.

Government amendment No. 215, in page 26, leave out lines 11 to 34 and insert—


'(3) The owner or occupier of any land notified under subsection (1)(b) shall not carry out, or cause or permit to be carried out, on that land any operation specified in the notification unless—

(a) one of them has, after the commencement date, given the Council notice of a proposal to carry out the operation specifying its nature and the land on which it is proposed to carry it out; and
(b) one of the conditions specified in subsection (4) is fulfilled.

(4) The said conditions are—

(a) that the operation is carried out with the Council's written consent;
(b) that the operation is carried out in accordance with the terms of an agreement under section 16 of the 1949 Act or section 15 of the 1968 Act; and
(c) that three months have expired from the giving of the notice under subsection (3).

(5) A person who, without reasonable excuse, contravenes subsection (3) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500.
(6) It is a reasonable excuse in any event for a person to carry out an operation if—

(a) the operation was authorised by a planning permission granted on an application under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 or Part III of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972; or
(b) the operation was an emergency operation particulars of which (including details of the emergency) were notified to the Council as soon as practicable after the commencement of the operation.

(7) The Council shall have power to enforce the provisions of this section; but nothing in this subsection shall be construed as authorising the Council to institute proceedings in Scotland for an offence.
(8) Proceedings in England and Wales for an offence under subsection (5) shall not, without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, be taken by a person other than the Council.
(9) A notification under subsection (1)(b)of land in England and Wales shall be a local land charge.
(10) A notification under subsection (1)(b) of land in Scotland shall be registered either—

(a) in a case where the land is registered in that Register, in the Land Register of Scotland;
(b) in any other case, in the appropriate Division of the General Register of Sasines;

(11) Section 23 of the 1949 Act (which is superseded by this section) shall cease to have effect; but any notification given under that section shall have effect as if given under subsection (1) (a)
(12) Subsection (1A) shall not apply in relation to a notification of any land under subsection (1)(b) where a notification of that land under the said section 23 has effect as if given under subsection (1)(a).'.
Amendment (a) thereto, at the end of subsection (6)(b) after 'operation', insert
'or.
(c) the operation did not materially damage the special interest of the area for which it was notified under subsection (1); or'.
Amendment (6) thereto, at the end of subsection (6)(b) after 'operation', insert—
(c) the operation did not materially damage the special interest of the area for which it was notified under subsection (1); or
(d) the area was not, or was no longer, of such special interest as to warrant notification under sub-section (1) '.
Amendment (c) thereto, at the end of subsection (10)(b) insert,
A notification made under subsection (1) shall be deemed to have been made for the purposes of this section unless amended or revoked following representations or objections made to the council under subsection (1A).'.
Amendment No. 234, in clause 29, page 27, line 15, after 'operation', insert 'or bloodsport'.
Government amendments Nos. 217 to 219.
Amendment No. 73, in clause 39, page 37, line 25, after 'Park', insert
'Site of Special Scientific Interest'.
Amendment No. 74, in page 38, line 2, after 'authority', insert
'as respects land being a Site of Special Scientific Interest, the Nature Conservancy Council or the County Planning Authority'.

Mr. King: We now come to a group of new clauses, Government amendments and other associated amendments which cover what many see as one of the central issues of the Bill. They deal with the status and arrangements surrounding the sites of special scientific interest and introduce certain proposals which the Government feel form the right balance for protection, with the notification of any improvement or work or change in such SSSIs, while seeking to recognise the proper and legitimate interests of the landowners and occupiers of those sites.
This is an area of habitat protection and conservation that has lain neglected for a considerable time. During the proceedings on the Bill in Committee it became clear that there was increasing concern over the disappearance of much of the wildlife habitat. There was concern that there was no proper system that could be justified on the balances that had existed, and the Government thought that it was appropriate to tackle the issue in the way that I shall now set before the House.
I shall be as be brief as I can, but, as every hon. Member knows, there are a large number of amendments. I shall try briefly to link them together and to explain their force. These amendments are central to those concerns. Many hon. Members and people outside the House attach the greatest importance to them. The first two amendments can be disposed of as being essentially technical. Amendments Nos. 284 and 285, to schedule 7 refer to the 1970 Act and are technical inclusions.
New clause 31 relates to the application of what we call the Sandford amendment—clause 39—to SSSIs. This is a matter that I undertook in Committee to consider, and this is the amendment that we have brought forward. We believe that it fulfils that undertaking. We hope that the House will think that it is helpful.
New clause 32 is the restatement of the requirement for the preparation of the codes by Ministers, in consultation with the Nature Conservancy Council, for the management of SSSIs. It might have been thought that if we were to have reciprocal notification it would be no longer necessary to have codes of that form, but we believe that the codes still have a useful role to play in a wider area than specific reciprocal notification. We therefore thought it appropriate, in accordance with the amendment, to include that proposal for the code.
I then come to new clause 33. We seek a balanced approach in this matter. It is recognised that if there is to be the power for the NCC, in the case of national parks and SSSIs, to object to grants being paid, farmers who are disadvantaged in their agricultural operations to that extent are entitled to a management agreement. It is also recognised that proper arrangements should be made under those management agreements.
Concern was voiced by a number of agricultural interests that there should be some provision for arbitration in such management agreements. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) will know


from his familiarity with the issue on Exmoor that there is concern over how one strikes this balance—one has the power to prevent things from happening, yet at the same time one is seeking to negotiate with landowners or occupiers what would be reasonable recompense for such prohibition. Some independent arbitration is necessary in that respect.
Hon. Members will see that that introduces the concept of arbitration, and the amendment is carefully worded to ensure that the arbitration is effective on what we feel is the fairest basis. I particularly draw attention to subsection (3), which shows the balance that we seek to strike. We believe that it is an important balance to introduce into the requirement.
11 pm
Amendment No. 214 is the precursor to the essential amendment, No. 215. It introduces for the first time the requirement that prior notification be given to an owner or occupier that the NCC is considering designating part of his property as a site of special scientific interest. I declared an interest in Committee. A criticism of the Bill was that the first intimation that the owner of an SSSI may have that he is in that hallowed position is when he receives a note from the NCC to tell him that that is what has just happened to him.
There is no prior notification. There is no procedure of application and no opportunity for circumstances or evidence that may be advanced by the owner or occupier to be considered. Therefore, we believe that there should be advanced notification, so that, if there are matters that an owner or occupier wishes to raise—without fettering the scientific judgment of the NCC as adviser to the Secretary of State—there should be an opportunity for him to make representations or objections before a decision is reached by the NCC.
Amendment No. 215 provides for what we call reciprocal notification. In another place the requirement was introduced that the NCC should for the first time be required to inform not merely the local planning authority but the owner or occupier of the land of the existence of the SSSI and also to prepare codes and give guidance on the operations and the ways in which such an SSSI should be managed for the proper protection of the habitat.
It was cogently argued by a number of hon. Members that there was no reciprocal obligation on the owner if he decided to take action that might damage a habitat to notify the NCC and give it an opportunity to make representations, suggest how the improvements might be made without damage to the habitat or enter into a suitable management agreement to prevent what might in certain cases be permanent damage to the habitat.
We considered those arguments and decided that it was not an unreasonable obligation to place on landowners or occupiers that within three months they should notify the NCC so that discussions could take place. It is a minimal requirement, because at the end of the three months there is no prohibition on a landowner or occupier against managing his land in the way that he sees fit. The minimum notification requirement's a reasonable and justifiable extension of the essential voluntary principle that we have espoused throughout the passage of the Bill.
It would be appalling if we allowed the disappearance of considerable areas of precious and rare habitat through neglect, inadvertence and ignorance on the part of owners and occupiers of such property. We feel that this is the

minimal requirement, and we have therefore proposed this duty, subject to the agreement of the House and to confirmation in another place.
One cannot, of course, impose a duty without a sanction to support it, and hon. Members will see that it then becomes an offence.. It is subject to a fine of a maximum figure in a magistrates' court. It is not raising the maximum. The definition in the Bill is below the maximum that otherwise the magistrates' court could impose. It is, of course, for the offence of non-notification.
We were particularly anxious to avoid a situation in which it might become the activity of certain people to seek to pursue their own personal private prosecutions in this matter. Hon. Members will have noticed that amendment No. 215 states:
Proceedings in England and Wales for an offence under subsection (5) shall not, without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, be taken by a person other than the Council".
So it will be for the council to consider and use its discretion about whether it is a minor offence or whether it is a major or serious offence.
I hope that the background makes it clear that while we wish not to damage the essential balance of good will between the land owning and the agricultural community and the causes of conservation, we attach such importance to the preservation of habitat—which in certain areas has been declining at a serious rate—that we think the protection is an important one that should be introduced.

Mr. Dalyell: Might it not be for the convenience of the House if the Government were to outline their attitude to the important and, in my view, dangerous amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd)—(a) and (b) to Government amendment No. 215? What is the Government's attitude to them?

Mr. King: It is quite a tortuous path that I have to follow in trying to string together this group of amendments. I have spoken without any notes, except for having the amendments before me. Indeed, I set myself the challenge of replying to the amendments after I had heard hon. Members speak to them. I shall listen to them with close attention and seek to reply to them.
The remaining amendments, Nos. 217 to 219, are technical, and I shall seek to move them formally.
I am grateful for the indulgence of the House in allowing me to deal with what is arguably the most important group of amendments to the Bill. I am proud to have had the opportunity to present the group of amendments to the House tonight.

Mr. Denis Howell: These various clauses are now a matter of much greater satisfaction to us than they were when they came to this House and when they went into Committee. They do not go anything like as far as the Opposition would wish them to go, as I shall explain shortly. Nevertheless, the Government have listened to us in Committee and have accorded the minimum requirements that we believe to be necessary for the protection of the sites of special scientific interests. It would therefore be churlish not to acknowledge what the Government have done and what the Minister has achieved, I suspect with his colleagues, in introducing these new principles into legislation for the first time.
Why are they of such supreme importance? As we have gone through the Bill we have appreciated that there has


been a dramatic change in the appreciation by people interested in conservation and the public at large of how that objective is achieved.
It is no secret that the Bill started out to protect birds and other rare species of flora and fauna as a result of a requirement in an EEC directive. Without that, I suspect that the Bill would never have seen the light of day. We know that under EEC law the directive should have been operative long before now. When the Government and other interested parties applied their minds to the problem of protecting species it was thought that this could be done by listing them and having lengthy debates here and in another place. Any plant, bird or animal likely to be endangered was added to a schedule to the Bill and given a protected status, and people were enjoined against destroying it.
There is now a new awareness that one cannot protect a species unless one protects the habitat in which it flourishes. That is the dramatic change in thinking that has taken place in this country. There is a new appreciation of that fact of life. That is why, in Committee and at other stages, we fought tooth and nail for the minimum protection of sites of special scientific interest. I hope that the Minister will not mind my saying that just as we pay some tribute to him for having listened and responded to what we said, had it not been for the tenacity of some of my hon. Friends at various stages we should never have achieved this provision or given the protection that I judge from the attitude on both sides the whole House now appreciates is necessary.
There are 3,800 sites of special scientific interest around the country. The NCC recently told us that those sites had been damaged or destroyed at an alarming rate, and that between 10 per cent. and 13 per cent. of them had been lost or damaged in recent times. That brings us to the first question that we must ask ourselves and the misgivings that the Opposition still have, namely, whether the voluntary system will be adequate to stop the rot and to prevent the damage and destruction of these sites, which we now all agree to be of supreme importance.
Of one thing we can be sure. The notification of the establishment of such a site, or the three months' reciprocal notification by a landowner if he intends to do anything that might damage or harm it, will alone be of considerable importance. That is why we are happy at the moment to accept this method of dealing with the problem. It will allow public information to be obtained and will increase the amount of public knowledge about these sites, and it will specifically draw the matter to the attention of bodies such as the Nature Conservancy Council and all the voluntary bodies that have been of such enormous help to us during the passage of the Bill, so that they have the opportunity, which is the most important thing of all in a democracy, to raise the issue and to have a public discussion with informed public opinion, in the hope that that public opinion will have an effect upon the interested parties.
11.15 pm
We regard the reciprocal notification in amendment No. 215 as the minimum requirement in our approach to the problem. I accept readily that the NCC should give three months' notice to a landowner, but I have to enter one important caveat. Amendment No. 214 proposes that

notification should be given to a landowner of the establishment of an SSSI. We must remember that we are dealing with sites of supreme importance for nature conservation, and although 95 per cent. of landowners will behave properly and fairly and will respect the consultation procedures, irresponsible rogue landowners may plough up fields or fell woods and damage a site before the notice comes into effect. I am advised that the NCC and other interested parties have had examples of that happening under the existing arrangements. That loophole should be closed, and that is the purpose of our sub-amendment (c) to amendment No. 214.
I also express our appreciation to the Minister for new clause 31. In our bargaining sessions late into the night, in order that we could facilitate the passage of the Bill we asked the Minister to provide that the Sandford principle should be applied to national parks. The right hon. Gentleman has responded to that in the new clause.
But the big gain is the Government's acceptance of the principle of reciprocal notification—a phrase that I coined and that has passed into the language. We regard that principle as enormously important.
I shall not read out the 45 SSSIs in England alone that have been lost or seriously damaged in recent years. I had intended to refer to some in detail if time had permitted, but I am sure that the House has access to the information. I am sorry that it is not possible to circulate one's speeches to prevent their having to be made, which is a practice followed by some other Assemblies. If it were possible, I would read this material into the record—the expression, I believe, that is used in the Senate.
It is important that these examples should be well known. In the 45 locations where bogs have been drained, land cultivated for agricultural purposes, and deciduous woodlands chopped down and replaced, sometimes by fir, there has occurred a marked deterioration, damage or obliteration of sites of special scientific interest. This information, readily obtainable from the amenity organisations or the NCC, should be noted. It makes the case that the Opposition wish to state.
The clause will not prevent vandalism or destruction. At the end of the day the voluntary agreement has to work properly. As a result of the reciprocal notification, there will be constant monitoring of the situation. If the loss or damaging of sites is not stopped, it is inevitable that sooner or later a future Parliament will have to legislate. Those who wanted the voluntary system have been given what they want. Now they have to deliver the goods. They have to show that the voluntary system, the management agreements and the ability to compensate amount to a reasonable provision for the landowner to protect the national heritage.
Two other proposals deal with the Agriculture Act 1970 and the application of section 29 of that Act. Time and again, in Committee and in the other place, attention was drawn to the fact that most of the difficulties and misgivings follow from the belief, possibly mistaken but widely held, with substantial supporting evidence, that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in making grants under the Act to assist greater efficiency in agriculture, paid insufficient attention to conservation interests. The two proposals attempt to rectify that situation.
New clause 13 proposes that where an SSI site is affected by an application for grant under the Agriculture Act, the Ministry must provide full financial information


about the scheme to the Nature Conservancy Council, which may then make representations for the alternative use of such funds to better integrate the aims of conservation and agriculture. I hope that the Government are able to accept the new clause. It writes into the statute, in plain language, the provision that the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and. Food, when considering the grants, pay as much regard to the needs of conservation as to the needs of agriculture and decide where the national interest lies, That seems a reasonable request.
Amendment No. 73 applies the principle of SS's to national parks, again in cases where application is made for grants under secion 29 of the Agriculture Act 1970. It refers to a relevant authority making an objection that must be considered. If the relevant authority's objection in the case of national parks must be considered, surely it is right that the objection of the relevant authority should be considered in the case of a site of special scientific interest. That is another amendment that we should like made. It would go a long way to satisfying many of the doubters.
We are showing for the first time a national realisation of the supreme importance of sites of special scientific interest to the future life of the country. On both sides of the House there has been evidence of a determination to maintain those sites. We disagree about the reserve powers, but I detect an all-party determination to protect these 3,800 sites, to extend them as and when evidence arises that they should be extended, and to tell the landowners that we hope that they will work the new procedure honestly. We trust that it will work and that we shall not have to come back for further enforcement powers. If that proves necessary, however, we shall do so.

Mr. Peter Mills: I agree with much of what the right hon. Gentleman said, but I do not like the element of threat that he is putting in the background. The farming community and agriculture generally must be allowed to work the arrangement in a spirit of good will. I do not think that an implied threat will help in that direction.

Mr. Howell: I understand that point, because it has been put to me about Exmoor and moorlands elsewhere. The hon. Gentleman must understand the other side of the coin. I pay tribute to such bodies as the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association and the Council for the Protection of Rural England, which are anxious that the voluntary system shall work, but if we make it clear that we intend to rely only upon a voluntary system, and that if it proves not to work we shall do nothing about it, it provides an incentive to the 5 or 6 per cent. of rogue landlords or farmers.
That is one of our misgivings. In supporting the Bill on Third Reading, as we shall, we say that we are prepared to accept the voluntary system, that we want it to work, and that we shall do our best to see that it does. But we shall keep it under constant observation, and if our hopes and aspirations are not realised—here I use a mild phrase—we shall have to return to the matter. We hope that that will not be necessary, but if it is we shall certainly do so.

Mr. Delwyn Williams: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that his new clause 13 backs the voluntary agreement? Does it not smack of blackmail?

Mr. Howell: Nothing that I do ever smacks of blackmail. The direct answer to the hon. Gentleman is

"No". That clause asks for financial information lo be made available. I can understand that some people may not wish to provide it, but if we are to have an informed discussion the financial consequences, which can be considerable for the farming community, should be made known to the relevant authorities such as the Nature Conservancy Council, the Countryside Commission, the national parks, or whatever body might be concerned.
We have reached a remarkable agreement, having regard to the state of the Bill when it first reached this House. I do not want to be churlish. I thank the Government for responding to our questions to them. Many people will be grateful. We all hope that the new voluntary system, with management agreements and fair compensation, will work. We look to our friends in the organisations that I have mentioned and elsewhere to help to ensure that it does, so that we do not have to return again to the subject. The annual reports, the reciprocal notifications and the opportunities for public discussion and comment may well ensure that the voluntary system works. At any rate, let us all hope so.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: I am grateful to the Government for having accepted, by their amendment No. 215, amendment No. 70 standing in my name and the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Cadbury) and for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Lyell).
The Government have done especially well, because they have understood that the protection of the habitat is at the heart of conservation and that our network of sites of special scientific interest is the minimum that we need to protect those habitats.
Amendment No. 215, which involves notification and a three-month delay, will at least give the NCC the opportunity to encourage a satisfactory solution with the farmers. In particular, I congratulate the Government on having the courage to back their aim here with a provision for penalties. Without such a provision the amendment would have little authority.
As a farmer and a member of the National Farmers Union, I must say that I do not believe that the NFU fully understands the real needs of conservation. It is too complacent in its refusal to realise the damage that modern farming methods and machinery can do to habitat.
With conservation in mind, we must look carefully at amendments (a) and (b) to amendment No. 215. requiring proof of material damage. Those amendments must be resisted. The reasons are simple. First, they will encourage owners and occupiers to take a risk that their operations will not damage SSSIs, with the result that some sites will be damaged.
Secondly, amendment No. 215 requires only three months' prior notice of an operation. In farming terms, that is a very short time. We want to encourage owners and managers of SSSIs to consult the NCC in good time. As I said, three months is a very short time in farming terms, but it will provide a reasonable opportunity for a good arrangement to be reached to preserve sites by some means or other. In my view, if the Government accept amendments (a) and (b), much of the heart will go out of their excellent amendment No. 215.

Mr. Dalyell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the Government were to accept amendments (a) and (b) they would provide a lawyers' paradise?

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman has made a very good point. We should avoid a welter of litigation.
So far the Government have shown themselves to be enlightened in this respect, and I congratulate them. However, I want to mention two further matters. First, it is important to stress that when the economy improves more money will have to be made available for conservation. I want the NCC to have money available to be able to reach fair management agreements with the owners of sites of special scientific interest.
It is important to see that sites of special scientific interest are specifically mentioned in the Sandford clause 39. I note that the Minister added his name to amendments Nos. 73 and 74 before the weekend, but that he has now removed it. I realise that new clause 31, by implication, involves the SSSIs in Sandford. That is a hopeful sign. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would confirm whether that is so.
It would be much more satisfactory if SSSIs could be specifically mentioned in clause 39, which is something to which at one stage the Minister agreed. In Committee my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State agreed to look very carefully at this point and hinted that he accepted the sense of including SSSIs.

Mr. King: What my hon. Friend wants included in clause 39 is included in new clause 31, which does precisely what he wants.

Mr. Carlisle: I am glad to hear that. It only remains for me to repeat that the Government deserve credit for their great foresight in moving so far to meet the case of the conservationists. As a farmer and conservationist, I fully recognise what they have done.

Mr. Ennals: I welcome the compromise that has been reached between the two sides of the House. It shows Parliament at its best. There were deep feelings of concern on both sides of the House about parts of the country that are not only loved by those who live there but are recognised as areas of great importance. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) referred to the 10 to 13 per cent. of SSSIs lost or damaged and said he would not read out the list. On that list is Hickling Broad and Horsey Mere. I shall not say more about them, but they were both lakes of importance for their aquatic plants and animals, and Hickling Broad for its bird life. Much has been destroyed, and I hope that as a result of the agreement that has been reached we shall see the end of the massive destruction that has been going on largely because people have not really been aware of what has been happening.
The Bill and the compromise are well-timed, and I hope that the reciprocal notification system will work. I was doubtful, as I said on Second Reading, about whether a voluntary system would afford effective protection to SSSIs, and I must admit that I still have that element of uncertainty. My right hon. Friend was right to say that we must watch and be wary. But having spent part of the weekend tramping over the Halvergate marshes on the Norfolk Broads and talking to the farmers as well as other conservationists, one increasingly recognises that there is growing recognition by farmers as well as conservationists that their joint interests lie in co-operation.
I add my congratulations to both sides. Had it not been for the voluntary organisations and the Opposition Front Bench, with pressures both in another place and here, consistent and determined, together with a willingness by the Minister to see the power of the arguments, we should have been in deadlock now.
It is a source of great satisfaction to me that we have been able to reach an agreement, but I agree that we have to watch carefully to see that the rogues, as my right hon. Friend called them—the rogue farmers who ignore advice or might deliberately avoid consulting the NCC—do not get away with it. I believe that there will be sufficient good will by the farming community, with the backing of the NFU, together with the conservationist organisations, to see that that does not happen.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: I want to address my remarks in the main to amendments Nos. 214 and 215, with specific reference to amendments (a) and (b)—amendments that I tabled—to amendment No. 215.
First, however, I express my general agreement with the way in which the Bill has developed in terms of SSSIs, and report the enormous amount of good will that exists amongst members of all the organisations to which I have been talking during the passage of the Bill. In particular, the CLA and the NFU wish to accede to the spirit of the Bill and to Parliament's wishes regarding the sustenance of SSSIs. I applaud that.
One thing that has been evident all along is what I shall call the "awful powers" of the NCC. The power of the NCC to designate an area as being one of special scientific interest without any power of appeal causes concern among land-owning and land-occupying interests.
Amendment No. 214 is helpful, and I welcome it. It has gone a long way towards resolving that fear, but it does not get down to the nub of the matter because designation is arbitrary, not seriously challengeable, and not ratifiable by any appeal procedure other than to the NCC which made the designation in the first place. The NCC is both judge and jury in what it considers to be an area of special scientific interest.
A classic example is one that is current at the moment and was the subject of an exchange at Question Time in another place on 30 June. It relates to the Berwyns, which were mentioned in Committee. It illustrates the power of the NCC to notify an area as an SSSI without, first, explaining the significance of the area in conservation terms or, secondly, having regard to other land use interests. The prime reason for the NCC's wish to notify 53,000 acres as an SSSI rests upon the presence of a number of pairs of merlins and hen harriers, neither of which, I am given to understand, is an endangered species. In fact, hen harriers have been extending their range in recent years.
I understand that the Berwyns contain about 65 per cent. of the Welsh population of hen harriers and between 10 per cent. and 20 per cent. of the merlin population. There are, therefore, significant numbers of both species elsewhere in Wales and Britain. The NCC points out that the importance of the site was identified in a publication "A Nature Conservation Review" of the Nature Conservancy Council in 1977. However, the area of the site selected in that review was 9,600 acres. The NCC has so far failed to explain to anyone why it needs to notify the site when the bird species are not endangered, and are


present elsewhere in Wales and Britain, or why it covers an area five times as large as that described in its own publication.
No one would mind that the NCC case for notifying the Berwyns was so ephemeral if the effect of notification was as minimal as was intended under the 1949 Act. However, the NCC now says that within the 53,000 acres of the proposed site there will be a presumption against forestry. That is a major presumption. It threatens the development of forestry on the Berwyns and on large areas elsewhere in upland Wales. The rural community is fragile enough for the Secretary of State to refer to the need to create employment in rural area and to issue circular 22/80 to encourage employment. If the suppression of forestry and agricultural development is allowed to happen it will jeopardise employment in the immediate area and, more important, the development of timber processing industries, which could offer substantial opportunities for employment in Wales.

Mr. Deiwyn Williams: Will my hon. Friend take it from me that tomorrow the Welsh council of the Nature Conservancy Council will present its full report to the full national NCC, which will contain a recommendation of designation for the Berwyns? Is it not morally right for the Nature Conservancy Council to postpone any designation of the Berwyns until the Bill has been implemented?

Mr. Shepherd: The Nature Conservancy Council should give the matter careful consideration before making any recommendations. It should at least wait until the Bill has been enacted, so that we know where we stand.
I gave the example of the Berwyns to illustrate the NCC's ability to act in an arbitrary way. However, that possibility cannot be explored. Any representations made to the NCC can be interpreted and judged only by the NCC on its own criteria. What guidance will my right hon. Friend the Minister give to the NCC when considering representations from owners? It would help the landowning and land-occupying interests to know when they consider what representations to make to the NCC.
Amendment No. 215 replaces the voluntary code in the Bill as it came from the other place. The land-owning and land-occupying interests were disappointed that the voluntary code was not given a chance to succeed. There was an immense amount of good will towards that end. They are disappointed that they will not have an opportunity to put their good faith on the line. The Government have seen fit to bring forward amendment No. 215. So be it.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister said, it contains a sanction and creates a new criminal offence as a result of operations on SSSIs. It is essential that the owner or occupier should know exactly where he stands. It would be helpful to know where he stands if he should deliberately or accidentally take a wrong step. I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend say that the primary offence would be failure to notify. The clause does not make it clear whether the offence is a failure to notify, the carrying out of the operation, or a mixture of the two. It is good to have the confirmation that it is failure to notify that constitutes the offence.

Mr. Dalyell: In Committee we learnt to take the hon. Gentleman's contributions extremely seriously. However,

he spoke about the possibility of an accident. Might it not be easy for a rogue farmer to give an excuse? If a rogue farmer destroys a site he may plead that since it is no longer a site of special scientific interest he is not guilty of an offence. That bothers us.

Mr. Shepherd: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. I wish to make it possible for the industry to know exactly where it stands. Everything that I have said and will say is aimed at that. If there are such loopholes, it is as well to explore them now and to let my right hon. Friend's views be made known. The industry will then know where it stands.
If a prosecution is in order, the land-owning and land-occupying interests would be interested to know who is to bring the action. The proposed new subsection (8) says that it must be the NCC, with the agreement of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Does that mean that the NCC brings a private prosecution, or will it hand the whole matter over to the police and itself appear as a witness for the prosecution?
The matter is important, because there is a financial implication. In the first case there is a cost to the NCC, whereas if the matter is handed over to the police there is no cost implication and no strain on the NCC's finances.
If there are no cost considerations, what is the threshold of triviality? At what point does the NCC decide whether to prosecute? Is the small infraction considered more important than the larger one, or is there an element of discretion, whereby the NCC would ignore an infraction, merely giving a warning, or is the call to the NCC to take action whenever there is any damage to an SSI? What exactly is the NCC's role?
Amendments (a) and (b) to amendment No. 215 are designed to highlight the absence of an appeal outside the NCC. I, together with the agricultural and land-owning interests, would welcome my right hon. Friend's views on the absence of an appeal procedure. Amendment (a) suggests that it should be a defence for there to have been no material damage to the special interest of an area. Vast acreages can be and have been set aside as SSSIs, although only a relatively small area is of special scientific interest. If the Berwyns area is confirmed as an SSSI there is a factor of five. It is important to know whether a tree being felled on the corner, which in now way affects the SSSI, constitutes an offence.
Amendment (b) calls on the NCC to justify its designation of an area as one of special scientific interest. As it has not had to justify it to anyone so far, it might not be unreasonable to ask it to justify the existence of an area of special scientific interest on the point concerned when it brings a prosecution.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: My hon. Friend has raised a fundamental point in planning law. If any authority wishes to designate an SSSI. a tree preservation order or a listed building, there should he a right of objection. People should be able to appeal to the Secretary of State and to give reasons why the NCC's designation of an SSSI should not be upheld. Is not that an important planning principle?

Mr. Shepherd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. I am not interested in going clown the line of planning permission in terms of agricultural land


use. Agriculture is perturbed at the absence of a final arbiter outside the NCC when an SSSI is disputed. That is the nub of the matter.
There is one other important point. It is not possible for an area to be undesignated as an SSSI. I take as an example the comma butterfly, which is very rare, being located only in parts of Hertfordshire and Worcestershire. I am not certain that it is not extinct. I hope that it is not. I use it as an example because, should it live in an area that is protected as an SSSI and then become extinct, it is not unreasonable to expect that area to be undesignated. The Bill does not take that point on board. I should be grateful for the observations of my hon. Friend the Minister on those points.
I have spoken rather longer than I had intended. I hope that the House will forgive me. The points that I have raised are of concern within the agriculture industry and among land-owning interests. At the end of the day they have the responsibility of operating the land and, I hope, not falling foul of the law. I await with great interest my hon. Friend's comments on those points.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: This is a difficult debate, because a number of amendments are grouped together. We must debate them tonight, but vote on them on the next occasion that the House debates the Bill. It is a complicated procedure.
I welcome the broad outline of the Government's proposals. They represent a substantial move by the Government. I wish to emphasise the comment made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), that the voluntary system is being given its last chance to prove that it can deliver the goods. If the voluntary system does not deliver the goods, we expect legislation to introduce a compulsory system within the next three or four years.
One or two of the interventions by Conservative Members have implied that the Opposition question the good faith of the farming community when they question the voluntary system. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way question the good faith of most of the farming community. If we were legislating for 85 or 90 per cent. of the population, there would be no need to pass a law. Most people behave in a sensible and civilised way. The problem is persuading the remainder to conform. that is the major weakness of the voluntary approach. The good landowner would be perfectly happy to conform to a voluntary code, but it would not catch the rogue or the agricultural vandal. In many instances SSSIs are destroyed, not by farmers but by those from urban areas looking for a piece of land on which to dump rubbish or to carry out speculative development.
If there is scepticism about the voluntary system, it is not because of most of the agricultural community, but because we know—and Conservative Members should admit this—that within that community there are those who, sadly, will not respect the voluntary system. I hope that the voluntary system will work. There will be problems and we may need to introduce legislation in the not-too-distant future to deal with the few people who will not take notice of it.
Unfortunately, I did not hear the Minister's opening remarks. He did not spend much time talking about the financial implications of the proposals. They place

considerable additional duties on the NCC. That will mean additional manpower, which will cost money. The management agreement will also cost money. I hope that the Minister will give a clear undertaking that the NCC will be given the resources to carry out the job. Much of the criticism about the lack of information about SSSIs—espcially from landowners—has arisen because the NCC has not had the resources to carry out the job. It would be sad if the House were to give it additional duties which it could not carry out because of lack of resources. I hope that the Government will give a clear commitment that sufficient resources will be made available.
I hope that the Minister will deal with the detailed amendments, and especially new clauses 12 and 13, which raise the issues of ensuring that local authorities are given adequate information about the SSSIs in their areas and the costing of proposals for agricultural development or any other activity on site. There should be a careful analysis to ascertain whether it is the best use of the country's resources to have the land developed for agricultural purposes or for some other purpose.
It has been stressed on many occasions that one of the problems is not the lack of money in favour of conservation, but the money that the Government make available through agricultural grants that damages conservation. We are asking for a careful analysis to ensure that Government expenditure is used in the best interests of the nation and not merely in the best interests of an individual landowner.
12 midnight
We hope that the Government will show sympathy to new clause 29, which deals with the use of weedkiller, which is used far too indiscriminately and damages far too many habitats and creatures, apart from the plants that the farmer wants to damage.
Interwoven into the group are amendments Nos. 232 to 234, which relate to issues other than those to be found in the main series. Amendment No. 233 seeks to ensure that the owner of an SSSI is aware of the flora and fauna which are protected on his site and which should be given the full protection that the Bill envisages. Amendment No. 234 is a small amendment relating to bloodsports and the super SSSIs. I hope that the Government will respond to the amendments.
I welcome the proposals contained in Government amendment No. 214. The person who has his land designated as a site should have the right to appeal against the designation. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the right of appeal will apply only to future designations and will not involve all the existing sites. If over 3,000 sites had to pass through the procedure set out in the amendment, a massive work load would be produced. I hope that the Minister will make it clear that the existing sites will not be subject to the new appeal procedure. If they are to be so subject, I hope that he will make it clear that the NCC will have the resources to deal adequately with the matter.
What will happen during the period in which someone has the right to appeal against designation? Will the designation come into force as soon as the site is notified, when there will be three months to appeal against it? Will it come into operation only at the end of the three months? If the site is designated because, for example, it has hen barriers on it, will three months be available to shoot them so that it is possible to appeal and say that there are none


on the site. or does the designation come into effect at the time of notification? I hope that the Minister will clarify that issue.
I welcome the provision that in the reciprocal notification there will be a land charge that is clear not only to existing owners but to future ones.
I oppose the amendments to amendment No. 215. The main amendment is a flexible compromise. It will enable the House to complete its business at not too late an hour. If we saw the amendments to the amendment carried, I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends would feel that it would not be worth while to complete our proceedings at an early hour.
I hope that the Minister will be able to reply to these issues and to emphasise from where the money will come to turn what I think is a helpful advance into a reality.

Mr. Farr: I join my colleagues and Opposition Members in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Minister on a remarkable achievement. He has dealt with a group of complicated new clauses and amendments. On reflection, I believe that he has the balance just about right, not only for the mood of the House but for many others. Some people believe that he has gone too far, and some not far enough, but I congratulate him on working out a meaningful interpretation of the situation, which I believe meets the demand of the public.
I shall touch on my small new clause 12, which is being discussed with this group. The purpose of the clause is simply to ask the NCC periodically to notify local authorities of the existence of an SSSI or a group of SSSIs in their areas. Its purpose is to give a little more authority and standing to SSSIs. There is a valuable chain of SSSIs throughout the countryside. It would not be appropriate if local authorities were kept entirely ignorant. All that I ask is that, in some way or other, they are notified of the outcome.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) said that there were some rogue farmers. Of course there are, but often the destruction or irreparable damage of SSSIs is carried out not so much by farmers as by developers. Often, a farmer might have an enforced sale. Due to death, the widow might sell the land and it gets into the hands of a developer. Often he can see a potential for developing land, including an SSSI, which the farmer and his family could not see. In those circumstances, although I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Minister has done in amendment No. 215, I believe that a £500 fine, although it is perhaps the beginning, is negligable compared with the profits which can be made by turning, for example, a swamp or a pond area into a prime building site.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) in saying that there should be a form of unscrambling or undesignating SSSIs. Often they are irreperably damaged and they vanish. There must be a sensible way of registering their demise, so that the regulations do not continue to apply to them.

Mr. Hardy: In tonight's debate I am in the unusual position of being entirely in agreement with the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Fan). I share his hope that the Government will ensure that local authorities are properly informed of the establishment of SSSIs in their areas. I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that, but I am hesitant about agreeing with the point that he made about

amendment No. 215. I accept that his right hon. Friend the Minister made a significant and effective speech, to which the House listened with great attention.
I agree that the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) is genuinely and rightly concerned to promote rural employment. The fact may have escaped him and other hon. Members that agriculture is labour-intensive, usually. It may be that designation for conservation purposes could be so helpful in terms of tourism that there would be greater employment opportunities and encouragement for developers and small businesses as a consequence. Therefore, I do not believe that the designation of an area is, in any case, likely to disadvantage employment.
I take the point about consideration for delisting, but the problem is that it may assist the irresponsible. For example, if there are a few rare butterflies on a bog or in a little wilderness area, a person may rapidly conclude that, by eradicating them, he can justify delisting the area and perhaps make a great deal of money out of it, and the country would be substantially the poorer. We must not help the irresponsible.
I therefore share the anxiety expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) and others about the period of three months in amendment No. 214, although, basically, it is a good amendment. We are justly anxious about what happens to the area during the three months before a decision is made. The Secretary of State should consider freezing the position, so that the irresponsible farmer is not led to believe that he has three months to effect the damage necessary to ensure that designation does not follow.
I felt it necessary to speak because of the comment of the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Williams) about new clause 13 and blackmail. I fail to see how a new clause that seeks to provide more open government can be regarded as blackmail. We are aiming to achieve greater public awareness and a broader base for decisions. For example, at present we tend to use cost-benefit analysis, which produces a solution based on the cheapest or most profitable scheme. That approach is widely applied. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food requires regional water authorities to submit land drainage and sea defence schemes to that analysis, and, unless they do so, they do not get grant-aid for such schemes. Cost-benefit analysis is used in cases where, in total, hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money has been spent.
I do not suggest that it is not useful—we should encourage people to be forward looking—but it cannot assess conservation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) perhaps will not mind if I illustrate departmental attitudes by mentioning a slight disagreement that we might have had a few years ago, when I pressed vigorously for the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation. I paid tribute to him when the arguments were over. I suggested that the Department of the Environment should base its assessment largely on economic advantage instead of on the environmental enhancement that would accrue and that no figure was included for the enormous improvement that the project would make to the South Yorkshire environment. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw), is well aware of the argument, because he took part in the debate.
Just as the Department of the Environment was reluctant to put a figure on the environmental advantages


of the scheme, so no figure is put on environmental advantage in these areas. Cost-benefit analysis is entirely factual. It may be realistic, but it does not take account of the environment, its attraction and, perhaps, the tourist potential that can be generated. I therefore believe that reliance on such analysis is deficient. I do not suggest that it has no place, but it is too restricted to immediate and hard facts.
The other weakness in cost-benefit analysis is this. I hope that the hon. Member for Montgomery will agree that there is no justification for the term "blackmail" when we say that the fault of the present system is that it is secret. The basis of calculation is never available, either to the Nature Conservancy Council, or for public discussion. I believe that we have reached the stage when conservationist organisations and those concerned about the future of an attractive and important area in their own locality should be able to analyse the basis of fact upon which decisions are made.
In the Amberley Wildbrooks and Gedney Drove End public inquiries, which caused so much public concern, particularly in their own localities, the people concerned were not given the basis of the decision, when it would have been entirely proper for them to have it. I find that regrettable, and that is the reason for the amendment.
12.15 am
I do not believe that any farmer, forester, landowner or water authority, or any enlightened individual, could be critical of the amendment. Every farmer and forester that I know has continually stressed that public money should be wisely spent. We are asking that it be demonstrated to be wisely spent. For that reason, I hope that the hon. Member for Montgomery as well as the Minister will find the amendment rather less unattractive than they appeared to assume at the commencement of their consideration of it.

Mr. William Waldegrave: I wish to make three brief points.
First, I congratulate and thank my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the reciprocal reporting arrangements that he has made. I also thank him and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who is also present, for their courtesy over the past weeks in answering our letters urging this or similar courses. Indeed, some of us were able to bring pressure to bear in families in this and another place.
Secondly, I disagree, sadly, with the impressive speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) on amendments (a) and (b). I believe that if they were accepted there would be a grave danger that farmers would be encouragd to seek a fait accompli and then argue about it. That would take the heart out of the progress that has been made.
Thirdly, we are now trying to establish a much improved voluntary system. This may meet one point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford. This voluntary system could be endangered by the NCC if it did not behave in such a way as to achieve consensus and assent from concerned interests. It is important that that should be established. Good will must come from both sides.
On the other hand, armed with the much improved flow of information that this legislation will provide for

Ministers, we must monitor the situation and see how things go. This is in no sense a threat, or blackmail; it is a matter of realism. We shall have to see whether the information that now flows in is satisfactory. If the number of SSSIs continues to decline we may have to seek even further powers. It should be understood that some Conservative Members would be willing to support such action if—and it would be with great regret—it turned out to be necessary.
I end this benign little debate by congratulating and thanking my right hon. Friend once again for the very wise movements that he has made on the Bill.

Mr. Chapman: I wish briefly to join in the thanks to my right hon. Friend for the compromise—to use the word in its wisest sense—that has been achieved.
I wish to draw together two opposing but not, I believe, conflicting strands that have emerged in the debate. I wish to refer particularly to amendment No. 214 and the amendments relating to it, and to amendment No. 215—particularly amendment (c) which relates to it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) raised a very good and soundly based planning legislation point when he complained, to put his eloquent words into shorthand, that the NCC had the arbitrary right to designate an SSSI. Although under the Bill it would have to allow three months for any representations to be made, it would nevertheless still be the judge and jury in terms of the potential designation of the SSSI. In other words, there would be no appeal to the Secretary of State.
I have a great regard for the expertise of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) on these matters. He has had the unique experience of being the Minister responsible for these matters under four Governments, covering a period of 10 years. He is also the next-door neighbour to a seat that I passingly held. I have come to respect his expertise. He made an extremely telling point. It was that, unlike the designation of trees or listed buildings, there was no temporary instantaneous designation that would apply to the SSSIs once they were provisionally designated by the NCC. Therefore, it would be possible, to take an extreme case, for a farmer or owner deliberately to plough up the land or shoot the birds so that the area would be effectively destroyed.
Surely the answer is that from now on the Nature Conservancy Council should be able to designate an SSSI, but there ought to be a right for an interested party to appeal against it to the Secretary of State. The period of appeal might be three months, which would not upset the timetable presently laid down. On the other hand, once an SSSI has been provisionally designated there should be a provisional and instantaneous freezing, as there is at present for listed buildings and for trees. That should be from now on, so that the existing 3,800 or so SSSIs would stand as being designated and confirmed. If the NCC wished from now on to designate further areas, there should be an instant provisional designation, on the one hand, but on the other a three months' right of appeal to the Secretary of State either to confirm or reject the designation.
That would be in line with existing planning law and, above all, it would be a sensible compromise.

Mr. Nicholas Lyell: Amendment No. 215 in many ways goes to the heart of the Bill in achieving the right balance between the needs of the


farming community and the need to conserve wildlife habitat. I congratulate my hon. Friends on getting that balance broadly right after a great many representations from many people who have not had the good fortune to be members of the Committee.
The obligation on the NCC to notify farmers and the reciprocal obligation on farmers to notify the NCC of what they may be thinking of doing is likely to rule out all the damage to the environment that can come from ignorance or lack of thought, and that is the overwhelming cause of the destruction of wildlife habitat. It leaves a good deal still to good will and good sense, and I believe that the National Farmers Union, in its representations, has made the point often enough that the farmer shows good will and good sense, so that there can be a reasonable balance. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) said, if that turned out not to be the case both sides of the House would regard wildlife habitat as important enough to require further measures.
I sympathise with my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd), who referred to a number of problems, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping; Barnet (Mr. Chapman) that there may be an opportunity to work out a more detailed balance in the next few days by giving farmers and landowners whose land is potentially affected by an SSSI the opportunity not merely to make representations to the NCC but to take them to a third party—perhaps the Secretary of State—if the council does not give them the sympathetic consideration that they deserve.

Mr. Dalyell: It may be worth considering the line pursued by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman), but may I ask a factual question? The NCC has considerable technical expertise, and I understand that the Secretary of State for the Environment does not have comparable expertise—nor should he—in his Department. It may look attractive to have an appeal system and to say that the NCC: should not be judge and jury in its own case, but a difficult situation could be created.

Mr. Lyell: If we were in Committee I could go into the matter in more detail, but it is not the holding of technical expertise that enables one to balance the arguments; it is the standing aside as a third party. Those with great expertise have been known to get the bit between their teeth, and one would seek to go to an arbitrator on such occasions.
The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford in that direction has more force than the amendments that he and some of my other hon. Friends have tabled to mitigate what they see as the potential adverse effects of amendment No. 215. Therefore, I hope that they will press the arbitration line rather than the line of their amendments, and that amendment No. 215 will be approved unamended.
I welcome the enormous improvements made to the Bill and the sensible balance achieved by the package of measures proposed by the Department.

Mr. Delwyn Williams: Hon. Members have pointed out that there is no redress for anyone offended by the designation of an SSSI. That is certainly true in 53,000 acres of the Berwyns.
Everyone has been full of congratulations in the debate. There have been self-congratulations, mutual congratulations and congratulations of the other side. But no one has

considered the nub of the problem—where will the money come from, and what will happen when it is not forthcoming?
For example, 15,000 acres of the designated land in the Berwyns could be altered for the better. Compensating the Berwyn farmers, even at £14 per acre, would cost about £200,000. And what will happen if the farmers are not willing to enter into a management agreement? I suggest that if clause 13 is adopted the NCC will make certain representations to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
I mentioned blackmail earlier. I wonder what representations the NCC would make. If a farmer turned down a management agreement and applied for a grant there would be consultation between the NCC and the Ministry. Human nature being what it is, I cannot believe that the NCC would bend over backwards to help him. That is what I meant by blackmail.
Deforestation has been a sad feature of the uplands of Wales. The development in the Berwyns will slop afforestation of several thousand acres, which will have an adverse effect on the rural economy of the area. Tomorrow, the Conservancy Council will formally recommend the designation of the Berwyns to the NCC.
12.30 am
I ask, in the name of conscience, that the council should postpone the designation at least until the Bill is implemented. This duty is owed to the 106 families in the Berwyns who depend for their livelihood on that beautiful countryside. A duty is also owed to the people of Wales. This is a large slice of the 'Welsh nation. For the Nature Conservancy Council so irresponsibly to designate such a large amount of Welsh land is not on. I ask the council to reconsider the matter.
If the spirit of the Bill is to be implemented and if the farming community in the rest of the United Kingdom is to respond to the Bill, which I welcome, the Nature Conservancy Council should show that it has good will, that it intends to be responsible, and that it means business by postponing the designation of the Berwyns.

Mr. Dalyell: I understand that there have been two and a half years of consultation in relation to the Berwyns and that tomorrow's events will be the culmination of a great deal of discussion. I am reluctant to be full of congratulations. There is a fly in the ointment. It is the question of money.
One of the matters on which there has been insufficient discussion is the financing of the NCC. Unless the NCC receives much stronger financial backing, many of the good things achieved in Committee and on the Floor of the House in changes to the Bill will be difficult to implement. Ministers have not been able to say much about the financing of the NCC, which I shall not describe as operating on a shoe-string. It is, however, pretty powerless. Unless the NCC has a good deal of financial muscle, many of the best intentions of the House will. not be implemented.
We learnt in Committee to pay considerable attention to any amendments moved by the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd). Because the hon. Gentleman represents a substantial and important group of opinion, we should examine carefully what he proposes. Our hope is that the Minister will resist the hon. Gentleman's amendments. They raise considerable doubts about what happens should anyone contravene the requirement to


notify the NCC under amendment No. 215. The hon. Gentleman's amendments provide excuses for not contacting the NCC should operations on SSSIs be planned by an owner-occupier.
The second part of amendment (b) to amendment No. 215 is clearly unacceptable, as it permits someone to destroy the area's interests and to claim that because it is no longer of interest he is not guilty of an offence. It would be a lawyers' paradise should court proceedings result. Once the matter got into the court, the task of interpretation would be a nightmare.
The hon. Gentleman's amendment (a) to amendment No. 215 is not needed because, in court, the fact that no damage was done is a mitigating circumstance that can be used by a defendant to defend the consequence of his actions. If this were contained in the Bill it might encourage owner-occupiers to take a risk, to do the works and destroy the SSSI, albeit by accident, without consulting the NCC. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Hereford about accidents. However, farmers and others are not always able to judge properly whether their operations will be damaging. To avoid any doubt, the NCC should always be consulted. The amendments would provide alarming loopholes and excuses that could not be contested after the event. I wonder whether the NFU is over-reacting, as this part of the Bill requires only three-months' prior notification. Rightly or wrongly there is no stop order, and if the operation is not damaging the NCC will proceed immediately.
On the issue of the Berwyns, certain animal species, notably the larger birds of prey, require large hunting territories over which to feed, and to survive. For example a pair of golden eagles require a minimum of 12,000 acres of territory. Therefore, if we are to protect the birds of prey in Britain and their habitats, and to fulfil our obligations under the EEC directive and to the international conservation community, large areas somewhere will need active conservation.
A lot more could be said about this matter. I have discussed it fully with Lady White in the other place. She has taken an extreme interest in the Berwyns issue. As a Scot, I shall not go on and on about a Welsh subject, but I hope that the Minister will give a full reply. If he does not resist these amendments, some of the rest of us, even at this hour, will hope to do so.

Mr. King: Let me begin by replying to the contributions to this important debate and to the wide range of new clauses and amendments to the new clauses that have been tabled. I propose to move quickly through a number of what I shall describe without disrespect as the peripheral amendments that have been tabled.
I start with the amendment that proposes that the Nature Conservancy Council should have discretion on whether it enters into a management agreement. This revolves around the substitution of "may" for "shall". We do not believe that it would be proper to accept the amendment. It cuts across the whole principle of Sandford, which is that if the farmer does not receive grant, or if the grant is objected to, he is entitled to receive a management agreement in its place.
I come next to new clause 29. It provides that before any person applies weedkiller to an area of land in an SSSI he must consult the NCC. That point would be clearly

covered under the heading of actions that are unlikely to improve the habitat concerned. It would therefore come within the notification arrangements and, therefore, our proposals.
The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) has tabled amendment No. 232, which would require the NCC to notify the Secretary of State of the existence of areas of special scientific interest. It is an interesting amendment. Although my brief says "resist", I am prepared to recommend the House to accept it. There is a lack of adequate data in the House and in the Department on the existence of SSSIs.
I move next to new clause 12, which provides the reverse. It states:
The Secretary of State shall provide each local authority with a list of all areas of special scientific interest in that authority's area".
That is back to front, because the only duty that has heretofore existed has been upon the NCC to inform the local authority of the SSSI. The Secretary of State has been the last person to find out, so he is not the person to notify every local authority. However, we feel that it would be sensible that the NCC, rather than the Secretary of State, should in future give each local planning authority a complete list of the SSSIs in its area and make such lists available to the public on request. I hope that with that assurance the hon. Gentleman will feel able to ask leave to withdraw his new clause.
New clause 13, in the names of the hon. Members for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy), for Stockport, North and for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), suggests that
the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Secretary of State for Scotland shall be required to provide the Nature Conservancy Council with all relevant financial information" concerning an application for a farm capital grant.
We recommend that the new clause be rejected, because it is no part of the NCC's job to consider the financial implications in any decision involving an SSSI. It is at liberty, having considered a farmer's proposals, to suggest changes to make a scheme more acceptable. The question of involving grant-aid or the scale of a project in the assessment of the calibre of habitat seems an undesirable concept to introduce.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Minister objected to our changing "shall" to "may", and now he is objecting to new clause 13. This makes a firm presumption that the NCC will have the money to do it. If it has not got the money, it will be in an impossible position. In a way, I am pleased that these proposals are to be rejected, as long as the right hon. Gentleman can guarantee that the NCC will have the money to meet these commitments.

Mr. King: I shall come to the question of resources. Amendment No. 233 would require the NCC to advise owners and occupiers of
any activity that would disturb or harm
protected animals or plants. I hope that the hon. Member for Stockport, North will feel that clause 28, as drafted, has that effect and that that point is met. I recognise that a number of these amendments and new clauses were tabled before the Government's amendments and new clauses, which incorporate a number of the concepts.
Amendment No. 234 does not deal with conservation, which is the prime concern of the Government. It seeks to insert "or bloodsport". That is not the purpose of the Bill. Its purpose is to concentrate on conservation. Therefore, I cannot recommend that that amendment be accepted.
Amendments Nos. 73 and 74 seek to extend the scope of the clause to SSSIs. The Government have already accepted that principle. New clause 31 covers that point.
Amendment No. 142 seeks to extend the principle of what we call the Sandford amendment to areas of outstanding natural beauty. I did not envisage this point. The amendment seeks to extend a principle that we have not incorporated in previous discussions. Therefore, I cannot recommend that that matter be encompassed in the Bill.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: According to my copy of the selection list amendment No. 142 is grouped with later amendments. I should want to persuade the Minister to think differently on another day.

Mr. King: I think that the hon. Gentleman will probably get the same answer when we get to it. I apologise for that error.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) for making it clear that the Opposition propose to support the Third Reading of the Bill. That is important from the point of view not only of the handling of business in the House but of the issue of conservation throughout the country. As the debate has shown in microcosm, we are dealing with active lobbies and interest groups pressing different views and with those who may not necessarily accept that the approach that we recommend to the House is the best and may feel that the voluntary principle, albeit supported in the ways that we have sought to support it in the amendments and new clauses, will not command the necessary support. If that principle is to succeed it will need leadership, and the first leadership has come from the House. If that leadership can be a united voice it will be extremely helpful to the cause of conservation. Therefore, I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Small Heath for what he said.
I deal next with resources. Several hon. Members have made this point, including the hon. Members for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and for Stockport, North and the right hon. Member for Small Heath both here and in Committee. No one will expect me tonight to give a categorical pledge about specific items of finance in relation to the Bill. I repeat what I said in Committee.
12.45 am
The house can at least judge our record in these matters. Against the background of the most difficult public expenditure situation that the country has faced since the war, we have shown our determination to do all that we can to protect the funds available for conservation. We realise that, in many of these areas, if that protection is not given now, habitat, wildlife protection and much of what is best in the country will be lost for ever. It is important, therefore, even in these difficult times, to see what we can do to protect such resources. We recognise that commitments are involved in the Bill. We shall seek to ensure that, as far as possible, within such resources as are available we shall meet those commitments.
I come now to amendments Nos. 214 and 215. Amendment No. 68 sought to introduce the principle of a land charge. That has been covered in amendment No. 215. Amendments Nos. 69 and 70 have been superseded by amendment No. 215. I am grateful for the generous welcome for what my colleagues and I have sought to do in this respect.
Amendments (b) and (d) relate to prior notifications in respect of sites already designated. There is no question

of that situation applying. Amendment No. 215 covers the point in subsection (12), and there is no question of introducing some new prior notification of sites already designated.
Amendment (a) to amendment No. 214 and amendment (c) to amendment No. 215 seek to prevent a situation whereby the moment the NCC even hints that it is thinking of having an SSSI, out come the bulldozers and the drainage equipment and away we go. What we propose in amendment No. 214 is the practice of the NCC at the moment on a voluntary basis. The NCC seeks to discuss. There is no evidence that immediately any farmer or landowner is approached his worst instincts are aroused. In the main, it will approach this matter in a responsible way.
This is not as draconian a power as some might have wished. The more disruptive or the less responsible landowner is still able, after three months, having given his notice, to take action if he wishes to do so. This proposition was not overlooked, but there is a limit to what one can do in these matters. If one endlessly ties up such proposals with small or legal complications of one sort or another, the clarity and what we hope are the simplicity and the fairness of the objective can be lost. While we considered this point, we did not feel that it should be pursued.

Mr. Denis Howell: We attach great importance to this matter, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. I am informed that there is some evidence, and if the right hon. Gentleman would like to see it I will obtain it for him. If such evidence exists, the matter should be dealt with. I was attracted by what the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) said, namely, that there may be another way to deal with it that we had not thought about in Committee, whereby the moment that a site is designated it is designated ipso facto, but that if anyone wishes to object he should have a reasonable period in which to do it. I am not sure whether such an amendment can be inserted in another place, but if the hon. Gentleman's amendment is possible it probably succeeds in getting us off the hook, or at any rate in giving better guarantees than we have at present.

Mr. King: I want to return to the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman). It is the other side of the problem. Some of my hon. Friends were good enough to say that I had tried to strike the right balance. The complications that one could make are endless. There is also a case, as was instanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd), for saying that there should be a right of appeal.
The justification in the past for not having a right of appeal—or of even having a right of notification, as happened previously—was that there was no loss of rights in any case. The tradition, whether in the case of a listed building or of a planning control, is that the individual citizen has lost some right of free action in this respect. In the case of SSSIs and our proposal in that respect there is the minimal loss of control. It is a three-month period during which notification must take place, and then a three-month interval before any action can take place. Nothing has been lost in terms of the ultimate loss of rights over property.
If we were to go further we should inevitably he involved in the whole panoply of an appeal system, and


natural justice would require a much more complicated exercise over the whole structure of SSSIs. In our proposal we feel that we can justify the absence of the ultimate resort. There is a complication, which the hon. Member for West Lothian put very clearly, in that the NCC is the advisor to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. If the appeal is to be to the Secretary of State, who is to advise him on the appeal? We are back in the judge, jury and plaintiff situation. The situation is complicated, but I believe that the balance is right.
I turn to amendments (a) and (b), which propose that two defences should be available: first, that not much or no damage had been caused; and, secondly, that the area no longer justified being regarded as a SSSI. Both those defences have nothing to do with the alleged offence, because the alleged offence is the failure to notify. It is not the action that is then carried out, but the failure to notify. The fact that no damage has been done has nothing to do with the failure of notification. Serious problems would arise which would have to be resolved in a magistrates' court. It would be a lawyers' paradise, as the hon. Member for for West Lothian said, for those concerned in arguing in the magistrates' court whether the site was one of special scientific interest. That would involve real problems.
It will, of course, be essential for the NCC to use its discretion whether to pursue action over a particular case. That is why we have left the issue of any prosecution for a suspected or considered offence in the hands of the NCC. It will have to use its judgment. If a minor incident takes place, I expect the NCC to show considerable good sense and not prosecute. Obviously, if the offence or the act is much more serious, the NCC will wish to prosecute. I say that because I agree with the comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave).
This provision will not work unless the NCC shows good sense at all stages. I shall be honest and say that some of the reactions that my right hon. Friend and I get from different parts of the country are much affected by the tact and good sense that has been shown by members of the NCC in the course of their normal duties. Some members have shown considerable diplomacy, understanding and co-operation. Others have shown a less helpful approach, and unfortunately that often stirs up irritation among farmers.
The problem is difficult and will probably always exist. However, it is important that the NCC should—as it is anxious to do—recognise its role in education and public relations in order to ensure that its necessary work is carried out with the minimum friction and the maximum of good will.
The approach of consent and consensus is enormously important. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) asked whether a £500 fine was enough. Of course, it is not. An offence might lead to an improvement in land values that could be calculated in terms of thousands of pounds. That is not the point. The point is that we are putting publicly on record the fact that there is a duty to notify and that that duty will be backed by a penalty, which will be the subject of publicity and public criticism. The important point is not the level of the fine but that for the first time Parliament will have made it clear that we judge this to be a proper duty£in accordance with

the national interest—to lay on owners and occupiers of sites of special scientific interest. That duty is backed by a penalty for non-observation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford asked about guidance to the NCC and about how people should make their representations to it. We shall consider that, and consider whether it can be incorporated in the code, which we shall produce with the NCC's co-operation.
My hon. Friend mentioned denotification. There is a procedure for denotification. Sadly, several SSSIs have been denotified because they are no longer of scientific interest. In that respect, we have some record of the damage done in certain SSSIs.
My hon. Friends the Members for Montgomery (Mr. Williams) and for Hereford, and the hon. Member for West Lothian referred to the Berwyn mountains. Wide consultations have taken place on the proposal. Its scale has given rise to concern about the future pattern of designations. I was concerned by the implication that the NCC might seek to evade the Bill's procedures in terms of the designation of the Berwyn mountains. The NCC will in any case comply with all consultation and notification requirements arising from the Bill in connection with any designation of the Berwyn mountains. I hope that that assurance will be helpful.
1 am
In this world in which we seek to build more trust and understanding, it would be wrong if there were an implication that we were trying to get in before a certain deadline and were not honouring to the full the spirit of the arrangements that we are putting before the House.
This has been a long but valuable debate. We do not often reach the degree of consensus that I think there has been between the two sides of the House tonight. It has been in a cause that a united House can be that much more effective in achieving—the better preservation of the habitats.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 285, in page 68, line 1, leave out from beginning to 'applies' in line 5 and insert—
(b) has been notified under section 28(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (areas of special scientific interest);
(c) is an area to which section 29(3) of that Act (special protection for certain areas of special scientific interest)' —[Mr. King.]

Mr. King: I beg to move amendment No. 286, in page 68, line 5, at end insert
'or
(d) has been designated as a marine nature reserve under section (Marine nature reserves) of that Act.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this we may take the following: Government new clause 34—Marine nature reserves—


'(1) Where, in the case of any land covered (continuously or intermittently) by tidal waters or parts of the sea in or adjacent to Great Britain up to the seaward limits of territorial waters, it appears to the Secretary of State expedient, on an application made by the Nature Conservancy Council, that the land and waters covering it should be managed by the Council for the purpose of—

(a) conserving marine flora or fauna or geological or physiographical features of special interest in the area; or
(b) providing, under suitable conditions and control, special opportunities for the study of, and research into, matters relating to marine flora and fauna and the physical conditions in which they live, or for the study of geological and physiographical features of special interest in the area,


he may by order designate the area comprising that land and those waters as a marine nature reserve; and the Council shall manage any area so designated for either or both of those purposes.

(2) An application for an order under this section shall be accompanied by—

(a) a copy of the byelaws which, if an order is made, the Council propose making under section (Byelaws for protection of marine nature reserves) for the protection of the area specified in the application; and
(b) a copy of any byelaws made or proposed to be made for the protection of that area by a relevant authority,

and an order made on the application shall authorise the making under that section of such of the byelaws proposed to be made by the Council as may be set out in the order with or without modifications.
(3) Byelaws the making of which is so authorized—

(a) shall not require the Secretary of State's consent under subsection (1) of section (Byelaws for protection of marine nature reserves); and
(b) notwithstanding anything in the provisions applied by subsection (4) of that section, shall take effect on their being made.

(4) The provisions of Schedule (Procedure in connection with orders under section (Marine nature reserves)) shall have effect as to the making, validity and date of coming into operation of orders under this section; and an order made under this section may be amended or revoked by a subsequent order so made.
(5) The powers exercisable by the Council for the purpose of managing an area designated as a marine nature reserve under this section shall include power to install markers indicating the existence and extent of the reserve.
(6) Nothing in this section or in byelaws made under section (Byelaws for protection of marine nature reserves) shall interfere with the exercise of any right of passage by a vessel other than a pleasure boat, any functions of a relevant authority, any functions conferred by or under an enactment (whenever passed) or any right of any person (whenever vested).

(7) In this section and section (Byelaws for protection of marine nature reserves)—

"enactment" includes an enactment contained in a local Act;
"local authority" means—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, a county council. a district council, the Greater London Council or a London borough council;
(b) in relation to Scotland, a regional council, an islands council or a district council;

"relevant authority" means a local authority, a water authority or any other statutory water undertakers, an internal drainage board, a navigation authority, a harbour authority, a pilotage authority, a lighthouse authority, a conservancy authority, a river purification board, a district board for a fishery district within the meaning of the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1862, or a local fisheries committee constituted under the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966;
"vessel" includes a hovercraft and any aircraft capable of landing on water, and "pleasure boat" shall be construed accordingly.'

Amendment (a) thereto, in subsection (1) after first `council', insert
'and after consultation with such persons as appear to him to represent interests of sea angling and other relevant sporting or recreational activities,'.
Amendment (b) thereto, in subsection (2), at end insert—
'(2A) No order made under this section shall prohibit or restrict the sport of angling, the taking or killing of fish or the collection of bait in connection with a sport, nor any entry into an area designated under subsection (1) for the purposes of angling or activities ancilliary thereto.'
Amendment (c) thereto, in subsection (6), leave out
'other than a pleasure boat'.
Amendment (d) thereto, in subsection (6), at end insert
'or the catching of any commercially exploited fish or shellfish by any method which is otherwise lawful'.

Government new clause 35—Byelaws for protection of marine nature reserves—
'(1) The Nature Conservancy Council may, with the consent of the Secretary of State, make byelaws for the protection of any area designated as a marine nature reserve under section (Marine nature reserves).
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), byelaws made under this section as respects a marine nature reserve—

(a) may provide for prohibiting or restricting, either absolutely or subject to any exceptions—

(i) the entry into, or movement within, the reserve of persons and vessels;
(ii) the killing, taking, destruction, molestation or disturbance of animals or plants of any description in the reserve, or the doing of anything therein which will interfere with the sea bed or damage or disturb any object in the reserve; or
(iii) the depositing of rubbish in the reserve;

(b) may provide for the issue, on such terms and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the byelaws, of permits authorising entry into the reserve or the doing of anything which would otherwise be unlawful under the byelaws; and
(c) may be so made as to apply either generally or with respect to particular parts of the reserve or particular times of the year.

(3) Nothing in byelaws made under this section shall make unlawful

(a) anything done for the purpose of securing the safety of any vessel, or of preventing damage to any vessel or cargo, or of saving life;
(b) the discharge of any substance from a vessel other than a pleasure boat; or
(c) anything done more than 30 metres below the sea bed.

(4) Sections 236 to 238 of the Local Government Act 1972 or sections 202 to 204 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (which relate to the procedure for making byelaws, authorise byelaws to impose fines not exceeding the amount there specified and provide for the proof of byelaws in legal proceedings) shall apply to byelaws under this section as if the Council were a local authority within the meaning of the said Act of 1972 or the said Act of 1973, so however that in relation to such byelaws the said sections shall apply subject to such modifications (including modifications increasing the maximum fines which the byelaws may impose) as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
Regulations under this subsection shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(5) In relation to byelaws under this section the confirming authority for the purposes of the said section 236 or the said section 202 shall be the Secretary of State.
(6) The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Council, direct them—

(a) to revoke any byelaws previously made under this section; or
(b) to make any such amendments of any byelaws so made as may be specified in the direction.

(7) The Council shall have power to enforce byelaws made under this section; but nothing in this subsection shall be construed as authorising the Council to institute proceedings in Scotland for an offence.
(8) Proceedings in England and Wales for an offence under byelaws made under this section shall not, without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, be taken by a person other than the Council.
(9) References in this section to animals or plants of any description include references to eggs, seeds, spores, larvae or other immature stages of animals or plants of that description.'.
Amendment (a) thereto, in subsection (2), leave out paragraph (b).
Amendment (b) thereto, in subsection (3) al end insert—
'(d) the prohibition or restriction of the sport of angling and the taking or killing of fish other than fish which it is unlawful to take or kill and the collection of bait in connection with the sport by individuals using such bait for their personal use'.


New clause 9—Study and preservation of marine flora and fauna.
New clause 10—Marine reserves.
Amendment No. 288, in schedule 11, page 91, line 43,
after '32', insert 'or 34'.
Amendment No. 289, in page 92, line 25, after '32', insert
'or 34'.
Government amendments Nos. 225, 229 and 226.

Mr. King: The Government amendments and new clauses relate to our proposals for marine nature reserves. The proposals originated in a report to the Government, to which the Government reacted by issuing a consultation paper, with the closing date of 5 August. The other place decided that enough was known about the problems for progress to be made without waiting for the outcome of the consultation, and their Lordships inserted a new clause covering marine nature reserves.
We believed that there were certain deficiencies in the clause and introduced our own new clause in Committee, where there were about six hours of debate. A number of important points emerged, and as a result we have tabled new clauses 34 and 35, which I hope meet points of particular concern to right hon. and hon. Members.
There is now no distance limit, except the territorial water limit, where previously there was mention of 1,000 metres. Our consultation paper indicates that only in exceptional circumstances would reserves exceed 500 metres seaward, and it is unlikely that they would stretch along more than 10 kilometres of shoreline. There are as yet no firm proposals for any reserves anywhere. Arbitrary dimensions have been subject to more criticisms from respondents to our papers than anything else has been.
Understandable fears have also been expressed by fishermen that the absence of any limits could pose a serious threat to their livelihoods, when they face unprecedented difficulties. This explains one puzzle. I was wondering why the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) was here, and now all is explained.
In the event, we propose no statutory restriction on the Secretary of State's powers to declare a reserve of whatever size is found to be acceptable to all concerned. In considering a marine nature reserve, those concerned will take account of any views expressed on the consultation paper.
The other area that gave rise to considerable concern was what might be called the inter-tidal zone. The previous clause appeared to refer to the low water mark. There was no sinister reason. The NCC already has byelaw-making powers reaching to the low water mark, and it was thought undesirable, in drafting and legal terms, to complicate the issue. That gave rise to misunderstandings. It will now be seen that the first line of new clause 34 reads
Where, in the case of any land covered (continuously or intermittently)
That is the draftsman's neat way of describing the distance between the low and high water marks.
There is a slight slip, however. The draftsman was so correct that he forgot the problem of flooding, which could stretch beyond the conventional high water mark. Therefore, the provision could cover flooded areas. I wish to make it clear that there is absolutely no intention of having a marine nature reserve above the high water mark.
Although the drafting technically makes that possible, the Secretary of State has no intention of confirming any marine nature reserve that stretches above the high water mark. That will relieve a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
New clause 34(a) includes conservation. The conserving of marine flora and fauna, which was previously a secondary purpose, has now been made the primary purpose.
Hon. Members who are not familiar with the subject may find the amendments difficult to read at first sight. The procedure for a marine nature reserve involves the creation of a number of byelaws. The premise is that marine nature reserves can be created only by the consent of all concerned. I put that on the record for the anglers and the sea fisheries committees. Their byelaw-making powers will be important. The NCC will be empowered to make byelaws for all those matters for which other bodies are not already the byelaw-making authorities. That will be the principle on which the marine nature reserves will be constructed.
The package that will be put forward by the NCC for a proposed reserve and the text of all the relevant byelaws must be presented as a coherent whole, so that any person or organisation that may be affected by the creation of a reserve is able to see right from the start what restrictions are likely to be applied. The Secretary of State must be persuaded that there is a good case for establishing a reserve and a good chance that it will be successful.
The House is familiar with the philosophy behind the marine nature reserves. Another place decided that the enabling power should be initiated in the Bill. We agreed in Committee to support that, and sought to improve the drafting in the light of the legal problems that exist, with complications for the law of the sea and other issues. We were able to take advantage of the responses to the consultation paper. I hope that the House will feel that what we have now put forward reflects the consideration in Committee and represents a workable proposition at the start of an important new step in conservation.

Mr. Dalyell: Throughout your parliamentary life, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you have been a protagonist of no unreasonable time limits in parliamentary procedure. If ever you were justified, along with some others—uncomfortable though it may be for Executives and Governments—the history of the discussion on marine nature reserves bears out the rightness of that cause. The Opposition were prepared to talk and talk. The Minister referred to six hours. It is no news to him that I alone, without my colleagues, had ready at the drop of a hat a six-hour speech. I was superbly briefed by Fred Holiday and Ron Currie of the Oban Laboratory, by Bob Earll of the Underwater Conservation Society, by Professor Nichols of Exeter, by Roger Mitchell of the NCC Huntingdon, by Chris Tydeman of the Wildlife Fund, by Morton Boyd and David Goode of the NCC, and by many others.
We would have used the time to overturn what I suspect was a Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food-inspired daft new clause, which was different from that which had emerged from the other place. How pleased Ministers must be that the Opposition helped them so greatly to come to a sensible and constructive conclusion. Had we not been committed to oppose and oppose by my hon. Friends making long and well-informed speeches, heaven knows what we would have been landed with on Report. This is


a justification for Committee procedures, which may seem clumsy and awkward but at the end of the day often come up with the right answer.
Having said that this is the right answer, I think that I know why such a daft new clause appeared on the Amendment Paper in Committee in the Government's name. It was MAFF-inspired. They succumbed, in an ill-informed way, to pressure from sea fisheries representatives, who thought that marine reserves would be against their interests. It is for us to try to persuade those who had doubts about the interests of the marine fisheries that MNRs, far from being a disadvantage, are a positive advantage to sea fisheries' interests, that they will help stocks that are under pressure and will help both sea fisheries and MAFF in their own applied studies. They fit the remit of the old blue zone concept. They form a control yardstick, so that we may see what is happening with man's activities. The conservation of the marine environment and commercial fishing and fish farming are by no means incompatible.
The Opposition have no objection to pleasure boats entering the marine nature reserves. We have put down a marker. We are concerned about reefs and sub-tidal issues that are raised, for instance, in what may be designated as the Monach Isles off the Western Isles. There is an issue to be determined on wrecks. The study of the encrustation of wrecks, like the encrustation of North Sea oil rigs, is important. We ask whether the NCC has the staff and the resources to oversee the MNRs. We must return to the serious question of resources for the NCC.
Someone will have to do a good deal of study on the differences between Scottish and English law. These issues will have to be fully researched. I do not want to go further into that tonight. It is an arcane subject and one that cannot merely be left.
One of the reasons why some of us for a long time have been passionately urging others, especially those in another place, to tackle this subject is that we are appalled, above everything else, by the effect of scallop dredging, which is exactly like damaging the most important SSSIs on land. It constitutes a definable threat. Without MNRs, one can do little about the damage that is done to the fragile habitat by scallop dredging. It is equivalent to ploughing up some of our most valuable fields of ancient grassland.
I am glad that we have been able to sort out the question of distances. The question of longitudinal distance may not be as important as the question of depth. Longitude—1,000 metres or 3,000 metres—can give a false impression, because what matters are the differences in the sea bed, which is a combination of longtitude and depth.
That can be illustrated by the importance, for example, of protection, in certain areas, for the sea urchin. Professor Nichols has outlined the great dangers to the sea urchin off the coasts of Devon and Cornwall, where they are used for commercial exploitation—for export to Japan, California and all round the world. We shall have to be careful that in many areas the sea urchin does not go the way of the dodo.
1.15 am
MNRs have a valuable contribution to make as a control area. They can be used to research the natural population fluctuations of littoral and shallow sub-littoral organisms and the impact of man-made influences on them. These

reserve areas would be nursery grounds for fish and for shellfish. That is why we have to protect them against the ravages of a scallop dredger, which can do more damage in half an hour than 1,000 divers in 20 years. The damage is enormous in relation to other potential threats. That is why we are glad that the amendment has more teeth.
I do not know whether this is the time to do it, but some of us would like to express a few personal preferences not for the establishment of MNRs right round the coast—that was never the proposition in the first place but in certain areas. In a previous incarnation, one of us used to he active at St. Abb's Head. I hope that St. Abb's will be considered, along with Lundy, on which I know my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) is keen, Bardsey, Linne Mhuirich and the Loch Sween complex.
In my capacity as a council member for five years of the National Trust for Scotland, I should like to put in a particular plea for the establishment of a marine nature reserve around St. Kilda. First, the argument for St. Kilda is that it is already a terrestrial MNR and a grade 1 site. Secondly, it is an area of exceptional wildlife interest. MNR status would afford greater protection to the seabird and mammal life in the waters around St. Kilda.
Thirdly, man's impacts are few, and it is a site remote from many types of coastal pollution, and, as such, it provides a valuable scientific study area. Fourthly, there are unlikely to be any conflicts with commercial destructive fishing practices, because the ground is so rocky offshore. Fifthly, underwater the site is of considerable interest for the wide variety of rocky habitats and the many marine species that are found at their northern and western limits of distribution. Sixthly, the site is a geological SSSI and the most accessible westerly outlier in the United Kingdom.
As one who, on three occasions, in various capacities, partly on the ship "Dunera" and partly under the auspices of the National Trust, has gone to St. Kilda, and really cares about it, I hope that if the House establishes MNRs, at least St. Kilda will be seriously considered as one of the first venues for the new type of MNRs, because it has a sound, urgent and good case.

Mr. Delwyn Williams: I note with pleasure that the Secretary of State will have a discretionary power to confirm the designation of marine reserves. However, it is strange that the power does not exist for inland areas.
I commend to the House the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay), which seeks to allow pleasure boats to come into marine reserves. "Morning Cloud" would do less harm in a marine reserve than is done when the skipper is, on occasions, in deep water in the House. I can see no reason for excluding sailing yachts.

Mr. Denis Howell: "Morning Cloud" is not a pleasure boat.

Mr. Williams: Well, I am sure that people take pleasure in sailing these big yachts, and I cannot see what harm they would do to the marine environment.
The Royal Yachting Association is concerned about its activities and hon. Members from rural areas are concerned about the effect of such a restriction on the tourist industry. I urge the Minister to reconsider.
It is difficult to see why fish farms should be excluded from marine reserves. For instance, it is in the interests of fish farming to have pure, clear water. Farming salmon,


trout, turbot, shellfish, oysters, mussels, and so on, requires clear water, away from coastal pollution. There does not appear to be any evidence that commercial fish farming pollutes a marine environment. It is an important growth industry around our coasts, with great job potential. With the plight of rural areas there is much to commend it.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I welcome the new clause. I understand the arguments for restricting it, but I hope that the Minister will resist all enticements.
As the Minister made clear, the idea is to get agreement from all interested bodies before the byelaws are made, so the powers to make them should be as wide as possible, in order that in any one area every possible eventuality is covered.

Mr. John Golding: What safeguard is there that all interests will 'agree before a byelaw is made?

Mr. Bennett: Apart from the Minister's statement, it is clear from the way that the Bill is drafted that it must be through consultation and consent. If the system is to work, that is the way in which it must be carried out.
I can see why the various groups want a veto so that there cannot possibly be a byelaw that covers them. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) gave an example. He mentioned St. Kilda, and he is interested in sea angling. I am sure that sea anglers will not be the slightest bit interested in the example given. If one considers all the possible areas it is clear that most of the groups likely to be concerned with an area will not be concerned with that particular area. It is therefore important that the power should be as wide as possible.
I should like to press the Minister on one of the restrictions that he has built in. New clause 35(3) states:
Nothing in byelaws … shall make unlawful. … the discharge of any substance from a vessel other than a pleasure boat
into the sea. Why is it necessary to make that distinction? There should be powers in byelaws to restrict discharge in particular instances.
Equally there should be power to regulate fish farming in certain circumstances. It could alter the marine environment. If an area is of value and agreement is reached by consent to establish a reserve it would be foolish to allow a fish farm to be set up that might distort its purpose.
I therefore hope that the Minister will ensure that he preserves in the Bill the widest possible byelaw-making powers. I refer my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) to amendment No. 229, in which the procedure for going through the byelaws and putting in the objections is set out. I think that that gives most groups fairly good powers to object to the provisions if they think them unfair. There are quite extensive powers—to object to the byelaws. I hope that in any case the setting out of reserves will be done by consent.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian gave some examples. New clause 9, in my name, suggests that at least three reserves should be created within the next two years. I do not wish to press the new clause, but I firmly ask the Minister to give some declaration of intent that he

does not simply wish to have the legislation on the statute book, but intends to have some reserves in operation within the lifetime of this Parliament.

Mr. David Myles: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) for clarifying a little what the byelaws are about. I did not have the pleasure—the doubtful pleasure, perhaps—of being a member of the Committee on the Bill, but I feel strongly about a number of matters.
I shall confine myself, however, to amendment (d) to new clause 34. May I be assured that commercial catchers of fish will be covered as parties who should or indeed must be consulted before byelaws are laid? Throughout the Bill there is a great need to consider those who must make their living in those areas, often in difficult economic circumstances. I therefore believe that the interests of commercial fishermen catching fish that is commercially exploited quite lawfully otherwise should be allowed in the marine reserves.

Mr. Farr: I welcome what my right hon. Friend said about new clauses 34 and 35. I, too, welcome the assurances that he gave, especially in relation to consultation.
I refer to my amendments (a) and (b) to new clause 34, concerning sea angling and other relevant sporting or recreational activities. I should add that on this my views are fully shared by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies), who unfortunately cannot be with us tonight. He has assured me of his full support in speaking to those amendments.
Amendment (a) provides that proper consultation shall take place with bodies such as the National Federation of Sea Anglers and the National Anglers Council. They are concerned that the establishment of marine nature reserves may be so worded as to prohibit or restrict sea angling. The same applies to yachtsmen and other sportsmen who are also concerned with their sports.
Similarly, amendment (b) particularly emphasises the strong feeling of sea anglers and others that no orders should be made that would in any way prohibit or restrict the sport of angling or the collection of bait in connection with that sport. I remind the House that the National Federation of Sea Anglers represents nearly 2 million persons; in fact, the number of sea fishermen or sea anglers at the moment is 1,700,000. They spend over £200 million annually on their pastime and they, like myself, are looking to the Government to give them the necessary assurances.

Mr. Golding: It was at precisely 1.30 am last Monday that I was called to speak in the debate. Let me say to the Liberal Chief Whip that I am here not because the filibuster is not yet over but because of a concern for angling, as the Minister will realise. I have not been satisfied with what has been said from both Front Benches on the matter in question.
The Minister said, in defence of the position, that the Secretary of State must be persuaded. I was referred to the procedures in connection with marine nature reserves. The reason why I am not content is that provision is made for groups to object, and they include not only sea anglers but those who enjoy boating. The right is there to object, but


there is no obligation, as far as I can see, for those objections to be upheld. It becomes a matter for the Secretary of State to determine.
It is traditional to say that the present Secretary of State would take note of such objections. I do not know whether he would or would not, but I know individuals in this House who, if they became Secretary of State, would have very little sympathy with the angling interests and who, if anglers put forward objections, would take very little notice of them. That is why it is important that the case for the anglers should be put strongly.
The case is very simple, and it is based on a longstanding precedent. The anglers have had freedom to collect bait by digging or other means, and they have had the freedom in some places to fish. They are important freedoms. If we are to deny anglers the right to obtain bait under the provisions relating to a marine nature reserve we shall deny them their hobby, or make it much more difficult for them to pursue it. If we deny them access to particular stretches it will be much more difficult for them to fish.
I do not think that the creation of marine nature reserves should make it more difficult for people to pursue the hobby of sea angling. I do not know whether the numbers are those quoted by the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr). What I know is that angling becomes more and more popular year by year.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: My hon. Friend is explaining the traditional freedom, the right to dig for bait, but is he not aware that the Nature Conservancy Council already has the power to restrict it if it believes that in the area concerned it will damage the habitat between low and high tide? It is thus only a re-enactment of existing legislation, which has been used with considerable discretion, and not in such a manner so far as to cause any upset to the sea anglers whom, I realise, he wants to represent on this occasion.

Mr. Golding: I am not sure whether what my hon. Friend says is true, but I know that the creation of marine nature reserves will draw the attention of officialdom to the power to restrict the activities of fishermen. Anglers see that as a danger; they see outsiders passing legislation that will do anglers considerable harm.
Angling is one of the most popular and least offensive sports in this country. Working people get upset when they think that parliamentarians who do not know what the sport is about make life difficult for them. We should be encouraging angling, not discouraging it. I do not want to make party points about the advisability of people fishing on the sea shore, rivers, lakes and ponds rather than feeling frustrated in our inner cities, but angling is a peaceful sport, which should be encouraged. For the city dweller, angling is often his only contact with the countryside and nature. It is desirable that we should encourage it.
It is important that the Government should state specifically thane, the creation of marine nature reserves will not prevent anglers from pursuing their traditional right of digging for bait and will not put new barriers in the way of fishing. It is not good enough for hon. Members merely to make soothing noises or for Ministers to say that they do not intend to create any difficulty for anglers.
We cannot rust all hon. Members to be as sympathetic to field sports and angling as some are. Future Secretaries of State could ignore sport, particularly angling, when

using the powers provided by the measure. Present Ministers will have to share the responsibility if those powers are misused.

Mr. Denis Howell: I shall be brief but sincere in saying that I regard the clause as yet another considerable advance achieved in the Bill. We can all be grateful to those in another place for pressing the concept of marine nature reserves on an initially reluctant Government. An exciting prospect is opened up, and conservationists and those who care about these matters will be grateful that we have got it right. There is little in the clause to which I take exception.
However, I share the concern expressed on both sides of the House about the protection needed for sea anglers and yachtsmen. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Daly ell) that the protection of the sea bed from scooping, particularly for scallops, is especially important in a marine nature reserve. I am glad that the Government have recognised that fact.
One suspects that there will be very few marine nature reserves. They will nevertheless be located in critically important places. It is important to make clear the healthy recreational pursuits that should be provided in the reserves. One pursuit is clearly angling, which I differentiate from commercial fishing operations. I cannot see any objection to the wish of thousands of people to pursue angling by rod and line.
The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) tabled amendments and the Opposition also tabled amendment (b) following consultation with the National Anglers Council and with the sea anglers.

Mr. Farr: I believe that amendment (b) is mine.

Mr. Howell: There are two amendment (b)s. The hon. Gentleman refers, I think, to his amendment (b) to new clause 34. I refer to the amendment (b) of my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham), who is within sight, if not sound, of new clause 35. We attempted to put in legislative form reasonable protection. I hope that the amendment commends itself to the Government. It proposes that there should be no prohibition of sea angling in marine nature reserves except a prohibition on taking those fish that it is already unlawful to take.
The second point concerns the collection of bait. I hope that the hon. Member for Harborough will not object if I say that our amendment is preferable to his because there are real fears among conservationists that wholesale digging for bait in a marine nature reserve could have a detrimental effect upon the reserve. It seems to the Opposition a reasonable balance to restrict commercial digging for bait by all and sundry while allowing the angler to dig for worms for his own purposes. The angling interests have helped to draw up this amendment. If it is not technically correct it can be put right in the other place. It is important that the principle should be included in the Bill.

Mr. Farr: Both of the amendments (b) to which reference has been made refer to bait collection. The amendments (a) and (b) in my name were provided Last Friday by the National Anglers Council. I imagine that they represent its final word on the matter.

Mr. Howell: I encouraged the National Anglers Council to take that course. I believed that it would be better to achieve some all-party agreement. The


amendments are a permutation on a theme. In his amendment the hon. Gentleman proposes to allow any digging for bait in a marine nature reserve. That will cause concern. We propose that the angler who will use the bait should be allowed to dig for bait. That seems a sensible proposition.
My final point concerns yachting. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that the traditional rights of navigation will apply to boats in a marine nature reserve. That will satisfy the Royal Yachting Association and the country's yachtsmen, and we shall not have specifically to put anything into the Bill. I hope that we can assume that people engaging in the healthy and sensible pursuit of yachtng will not be restricted in a marine nature reserve, since they cannot possibly be doing any harm. We would all wish to protect their interests and to encourage that sport.

Mr. King: I hope that it will now be felt that the Government amendment has superseded new clauses 9 and 10, because it carries out the thoughts of the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) in his reasonable approach to this issue in Committee. I ought to comment on new clause 9(6), which provides that the NCC shall propose at least three orders under this clause within two years of the Act's coming into force. We could not accept that. In saying that, I am not commenting on whether that is feasible progress. We do not think it realistic to put that commitment into an Act. That would not be the normal expectation. I hope that the hon. Member will understand that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) has tabled two technical amendments—Nos. 288 and 289. If the House agrees no to proceed with new clause 34, those amendments will fall with it and will be replaced by the consequential amendment No. 229.
Let me deal with the point of discharges. This problem is linked with the law of the sea. There is the problem of pleasure boats and the problem of rights of passage. Discharge standards for vessels are normally laid down by international agreements. It is much more desirable that there should be clear international agreement than various national requirements. Substances discharged from ships are already covered by offences with prescribed penalties.
The legislation on this subject includes the Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1971, the Dumping at Sea Act 1974 and section 20 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1979. We feel in this respect that the MNR byelaws would duplicate existing legislation. Further, it is not appropriate for byelaws to supersede primary legislation. We are not ducking the question of discharges. Without control they could do enormous damage to the marine environment. We are no more willing to accept that in marine nature reserves than anywhere else.
We then come to the question of pleasure boats. This relates to the power to make byelaws, as opposed to the rights of passage of larger vessels. The point was raised of a yacht passing through a marine nature reserve without causing any lasting impact. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales said that if the passage of a yacht did no harm there would be no byelaw to prevent that passage. There is the point of what damage yachts might do, and what, on the other hand, a concentration of motor

boats would do. It will be vital to have the powers to protect marine nature reserves from the kind of damage that might be threatened.
I should like to cheer up the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). He will be pleased to know that the Department of the Environment has a research contract with Professor Nichols on sea urchins. The hon. Gentleman probably knows about it already. At any rate, we seem to be supporting the angels in that respect. We must ensure that any byelaws that we make, even within our own territorial waters, do not conflict with our international obligations, including any that may arise from our membership of the European Community.
The most controversial amendments deal with the sporting and recreational interests, about which the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough expressed concern. It is clear that a balance must be struck here. We must pay regard to the overlapping concerns of sea angling, commercial fishing and conservation and see how they can best be reconciled.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, in amendment (a) to new clause 34, seeks to insert
and after consultation with such persons as appear to him to represent interests of sea angling and other relevant sporting or recreational activities".
We do not wish to write into the Bill all the bodies that should be consulted, but I undertake that there will be such consultation. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that assurance.
In amendment (b) my hon. Friend seeks to insert:
No order made uner this section shall prohibit or restrict the sport of angling, the taking or killing of fish or the collection of bait".
The right hon. Member for Small Heath was also concerned about that aspect. That is to prevent any byelaw from being made in any marine nature reserve to restrict angling or any ancillary activity.
I shall come to other points on this matter, but, first, I want to make some general points. My observation, after discussions with my advisers, is that probably it will not be necessary to restrict ordinary sporting fishing, angling, the collection of bait and the other matters that have been mentioned by hon. Members. However, one cannot rule out the possibility of some restraint. I think that it would be wrong to establish marine nature reserves and to start with a positive prohibition that in no circumstances can angling be interfered with.
The hon. Member for Stockport, North wants three marine nature reserves in the first two years. I do not know whether that object will be achieved. I can think of half a dozen places for marine nature reserves, but they will take time to set up. There will be much discussion and consultation. The distances that they might cover are difficult to know, although there has been talk possibly of 10 kilometres. We have 9,000 miles of coastline. It is not impossible for angling and marine nature reserves to co-exist. On that basis, it is reasonable to reserve the power, if necessary, to make byelaws for these areas. I think that it would be a mistake to restrict ourselves in the way suggested in amendment (b).
I have already dealt with amendment (c), which relates to pleasure boats.
Amendment (d) relates to commercial fishing. I cannot recommend the House to accept the amendment, because it could in certain circumstances defeat the object of the


exercise. I have sought to address my remarks also to amendment (b) to new clause 35, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham).
We are anxious to see that such a marine nature reserve goes forward with the widest possible support. It will not work if it does not. For all the byelaws there may be, if people are determined to defeat and frustrate such a scheme it will not work. It will depend upon the agreement of all the bodies concerned. There will not be any fishing byelaws unless the sea fisheries committee decides to make them. That is what we mean by the consent of all the bodies concerned.
There will be the opportunity to make representations, and it would be a foolish Minister who did not listen to them all. If this provision is to succeed it will need a large measure of good will. I understand the concern and the feeling that the whole coastline is to be declared a marine nature reserve, but I ask the House to realise that it is a limited experiment in the cause of conservation in an important sector. I hope that the House will feel, therefore, that the right balance has been struck. I am grateful for the general welcome given to our proposals.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made:
No. 206, in page 68, leave out lines 6 to 8 and insert—

'The Badgers Act 1973'

No. 207. in page 68, line 9, leave out '1973 Act' and insert 'Badgers Act 1973'.

No. 172, in page 68, line 11, leave out 'subsection' and insert 'subsections'.

No. 173, in page 68, line 14, leave out from beginning to 'he' in line 16 and insert
'any part of, or anything derived from, a dead badger'.

No. 174, in page 68, line 16, at end insert—
'(3) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under subsection (2) above if he shows that—

(a) the badger had not been killed, or had been killed otherwise than in contravention of the provisions of this Act; or
(b) the badger or other thing in his possession or control had been sold (whether to him or any other person) and, at the time of the purchase, the purchaser had had no reason to believe that the badger had been killed in contravention of those provisions.'.

No. 208, in page 68, line 18, leave out 'the 1973' and insert 'that'.

No. 209, in page 68, line 32, leave out 'the 1973' and insert 'that'.

No. 175, in page 69, leave out lines 3 to 7 and insert
'it had become apparent, before that time, that that action would prove necessary for the purpose mentioned in that subsection and either—

(a) a licence under section 9 of this Act authorising that action had not been applied for as soon as reasonably practicable after that fact had become apparent; or
(b) an application for such a licence had been determined"

No. 210, in page 69, line 26, leave out 'the 1973' and insert 'that'.

No. 211, in page 69, line 34, leave out 'the 1973' and insert 'that' —[Mr. King.]

Schedule 8

PLANTS WHICH ARE PROTECTED

Mr. Beith: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 70, line 2, at end insert, 'Calamint, Wood—Calamintha Sylvatica'.
I move the amendment on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), who served on the Standing Committee and will resume his place in these proceedings on the second day but has to be involved in meetings in the Isle of Wight today. I suspect that those meetings will be over by now, unlike ours.
The amendment is peculiar to the Isle of Wight The wood calamint is confined to the Isle of Wight, to a single chalk valley in the centre of the island, where it was first recorded as new to this country in 1843. Within the valley the plant is restricted to a roadside stretch of woodland edge of some 10 metres, and less than 30 plants remain.
The site is kept open by volunteer conservation workers, and without this action and the co-operation of the landowner over many years the plant would almost certainly have disappeared completely. The area is included in an SSSI but this plant is obviously particularly vulnerable because of its tiny population, its attractive flowers and the obvious interest shown in an exclusively Isle of Wight plant. It does not take much imagination to think how a tourist might decide to take away a souvenir of something that grew only on the Isle of Wight. It is obviously potentially a very vulnerable plant indeed, and would seem an obvious candidate for conservation.
The Isle of Wight Natural History and Archaeological Society would like to see its efforts to conserve this plant backed by inclusion within the framework of the Bill. I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to that view.

Mr. Monro: I would like to place on record my thanks to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) for all his help in Committee. I certainly respond favourably to the amendment. This is a success story in a way , in that the owner of the site, Mr. Robert Clark, and the Isle of Wight Naturalist Trust have worked extremely hard to look after this rare plant, and have had success in increasing its numbers from about 20 to 100. Nevertheless, when one considers that there are only 100 plants, virtually in the world, one realises that it is a small number.
The trust, the owner and Dr. Pope, the conservation officer in the Isle of Wight, and the natural history and archaeological society have all worked extremely hard, and it is right that this plant should receive protection in recognition of their good work. We wish them well in the future and hope that they will continue to increase the number of plants in this unique area of the Isle of Wight. I therefore have pleasure in accepting the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 14

INTRODUCTION OF NEW SPECIES ETC

2 am

Mr. Hardy: I beg to move amendment No. 31, in page 14, line 24, after 'not', insert 'or has not been'.
When a bird ceases to be found in Britain for some time and then returns it receives a good deal of public attention, gives many people a great amount of pleasure and often excites widespread interest. I think of the osprey, which helped to create employment in some parts of Scotland. That should appeal to some Conservative Members.
If a mammal disappears, the prospect of its return, unless by a deliberate act of man, is virtually non-existent.
Several species have disappeared. The brown bear, the wild boar and the wolf spring to mind. I do not seek to suggest that those species should return, even though they would be covered by the dangerous wild animals legislation. Their return to the wild would not therefore be legitimate.
However, one species that is harmless was once found in Britain. It had disappeared by the Tudor period. It is the same species as that found in Scandinavia, and there are small colonies in France and in the Federal Republic of Germany. I accept that the population in those countries is still very small. It is to be hoped that conservationist activities there will guarantee its survival and perhaps even allow such an increase in population as to make it possible for a number to be considered for location in suitable localities in the British Isles. If that happened, we should have to examine whether their location, or relocation, in Britain was reasonable and beneficial.
At this stage, the evidence does not rule out that possibility. For example, it would be interesting and perhaps worth while, even at the risk of a few waterside trees, to examine what would happen if a small colony of beavers were to be established in a remote part of the United Kingdom. They might build a dam and establish a small beaver lake, which could help to regulate the water supply. Recently in the United States beavers have been taken into isolated areas to counter erosion. So there is evidence that relocation in Britain could be of advantage.
I know that the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir M. Kimball) and one or two other Conservative Members have from time to time been critical of forestry, saying that if we planted the North of Scotland more extensively the effect on the climate might be such as to affect the quality of the rivers, or at any rate the sporting opportunities that they provide. I am in favour of planned and well-managed forestry. It is in the national interest that forestry should persist, and we could have an experiment with a beaver colony so that the damage caused to rivers by the forests could be compensated by the regulation of the water supply which the existence of a beaver lake could provide. It would be useful if that could be considered.
I do not speak with such authority that I could claim the theory to be right. However, the experiment should be considered. It might be useful if the Highlands and Islands Develpment Board, which has substantial powers in terms of matters that are important to the North of Scotland, were to consider the possibility—perhaps with the advantages that I have mentioned in mind—of establishing a small beaver colony in the North of Scotland. Such a colony might confer jobs. Not many jobs will be involved, but then there are not many people in those areas.
Although I hesitate to specify the locality, somewhere in the Caithness and Sutherland area might well be appropriate. As the hon. Member for Gainsborough is interested in the sporting opportunities offered by a river, it might be appropriate for the Highlands and Islands Development Board to insist that the species was located on his estate.
Whatever the position, I hope that the Minister will not rule out this possibility. The amendment will not allow an irresponsible person to release a wild boar, wolf, or brown bear, because they are covered by existing legislation. An experiment involving the return of the beaver could be carried out only if my amendment were accepted. Since

we welcome the return of birds, we should give a controlled experiment on the return of the beaver a fair wind while a reasonable evaluation takes place.
I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. Monro: The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) has had an interesting thought. Indeed, he does not introduce amendments without having given them careful consideration. However, on reflection he may think the amendment misguided. Just because a creature once lived in Great Britain it does not mean that the conditions are suitable for it to survive today. We must consider why the species died out. Perhaps it was eliminated as a pest. If so, our farmers will not be happy to see it brought back. It probably died out because the necessary habitat no longer existed. Either way, it would be wrong to allow its injudicious reintroduction. Indeed, the amendment seeks to reintroduce species that are no longer current in Great Britain.
We must also consider how far back we should go. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the possibility of bringing back wolves, bears, hippopotami, and so on. The important point is that the Bill does not place an absolute ban on release into the wild, but simply requires—under clause 16(4)(c) and (9)(d) and (e) —that a licence should first be obtained. No licence will be issued without a thorough evaluation of all the likely consequences both to the creature and to the environment in which it is to be introduced. That evaluation will be made through close consultation with the NCC and through the Department of the Environment, which will issue the licence. That could be done if the hon. Gentleman wished to reintroduce the beaver. However, a licence would be required, which would be conferred only after the most careful consultation. The licensing system exists, and there is no question of a permanent ban. Therefore, after consultation, all sides might agree that that was the right thing to do

Mr. Hardy: I am grateful to the Minister for that interesting response.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 9

ANIMALS AND PLANTS TO WHICH SECTION 14 APPLIES

Mr. Monro: I beg to move amendment No. 193, in page 71, leave out line 23.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government amendments Nos. 194 and 195.

Mr. Monro: The amendments are for clarification. The term "Dog, Prairie" is misleading, because a "prairie dog" is not a dog but a rodent of the marmot family.
Amendment No. 195 clarifies points about the giant hogweed, the giant kelp and the Japanese knotweed.

Mr. Hardy: Amendment No. 195 refers to the giant kelp, which is not here yet. The other species named with it are already to be found in and around the British Isles. The kelp is perhaps the largest plant that can be found on the globe, and it could present serious problems to the British Isles.
Will the Minister take steps to ensure that the French do not introduce that plant into French waters? If they did, the plant that we sought to prevent coming to Britain


would inevitably and rapidly come, with serious consequences. What further steps do the Government have in mind to ensure that it does not land in this country?

Mr. Beith: I should like to draw attention to the particular difficulty presented by the giant hogweed and the importance of its inclusion in the Bill. It grows in great profusion in my constituency, particularly along the River Tweed and certain other rivers, where it grows to a height of 6 feet or 7 feet, to the exclusion of much other wildlife.
The most serious problem is that children coming into contact with the plant frequently sustain a rash, which often leaves long-term or even permanent marks on the skin. The plant is tempting to children because of its size and the fact that they can pluck huge lengths and pretend that they are walking around with a tree or a weapon in their hands. Parents living in the areas near where it grows find it a constant menace.
Attempts by landowners and local authorities to deal with the problem economically have constantly failed. Attempting to prevent the plant's importation will not solve the problem caused by the fact that it is already there, but it betokens the Government's concern about the nuisance presented by its profusion. I hope that its inclusion in the Bill will be backed up by advice from the Department to local authorities and others in the areas affected about how to deal with it—how to control and eradicate it—as well as advice to doctors and parents on how to deal with the skin problems arising from contact with it by children.

Mr. Monro: The giant kelp is a serious problem. It is an enormous seaweed, and once it becomes established it can be a menace to shipping. Off the North-West coast of North America the kelp beds are marked on navigation charts, and considerable expense is incurred in clearing channels.
Marine biologists claim that if the weed became established around our shores the consequences could be of near-disaster dimensions. Everybody in Europe is ganging up to try to stop the French introducing the giant kelp around their shores. I hope that the international pressure will have some impact.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) mentioned the giant hogweed spreading in the Tweed valley. It is a dangerous plant, the sap of which has resulted in deaths in the Netherlands. I noted what the hon. Gentleman said, and I shall make certain that the Department concerned is informed and see whether special advice can be given to restrict the plant's spread. The amendment will prevent its spread by human methods, or its introduction from overseas to other parts of Britain. I hope that the publicity about our little debate will show how seriously the Government and everyone else concerned take the matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 194, in page 71, line 38, at end insert—
'Marmot Prairie (otherwise known as Prairie dog).—Cynomys'.
No. 195, in page 72, line 18, at end insert—


'Hogweed, Giant—Heracleum mantegazzianum
Kelp, Giant—Macrocystis pyrifera
Knotweed, Japanese—Polygonum cuspidatum'.—[Mr. Monrol]

Clause 15

ENDAGERED SPECIES (IMPORT AND EXPORT)

Mr. Monro: I beg to move amendment No. 32, in. page 15, line 17, leave out
'person commissioned by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise'
and insert
'officer commissioned or other person appointed or authorised by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to exercise any function conferred on the Commissioners by the said Act of 1976'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government amendment No. 33.

Mr. Monro: In Committee we discussed the reference to Customs and Excise. The amendment tabled in Committee was not entirely correct, because Customs officers can be appointed or authorised as well as commissioned. Amendment No. 32 seeks to correct the position. Amendment No. 33 is a drafting amendment, consequential upon amendment No. 32. They clarify a Committee point.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 33, in page 15, line 20, leave out
'the said Act of 1976'
and insert
'that Act'.—[Mr. Monro.]

Schedule 10

AMENDMENTS OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES (IMPORT AND EXPORTS) ACT 1976

Mr. Hardy: I beg to move amendment No. 242, in page 73, line 12, at end insert—
'(ac.) shall only he issued for species to which Schedules 1 and 2 to this Act apply, or items to which Schedule 3 to this Act apply, if they originate from a Ranch or Farm which meets the standards of practice defined by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species; this provision to conic into effect within five years of the passing of this Act.'.
I do not think that we need a long debate on this subject, important though it is. Hon. Members will recall that we debated the matter in Committee. I do not expect that the Minister is in a position to respond as favourably as I had hoped in Committee. He was kind enough to write to me, and I read his letter with interest. He properly referred to the need for active consideration of the position of declining species, not least those listed in schedule 2, whose position is deteriorating. I hope that the Minister will secure progress for those species.
I accept that progress is more likely to be made if there is an approach based on the principle of mutually beneficial co-existence—to which the Minister referred—which is at the heart of world conservation and which the House could debate more fully with value before long. We must accept that species numbers must be sufficient to allow a reasonable level of controlled exploitation. I know that the Minister feels that that could be beneficial and would make conservation more acceptable in some parts of the world where there is a temptation to destroy wildlife to allow other economic activity to take place. If there is to be a controlled level of exploitation the world will have to give rather more priority to the recovery of those animals and other species that are endangered.
While I do not disagree with the Minister's assessment in his letter—he may care to comment briefly on that assessment—I hope that he can convince the House that the Government will maintain a substantial interest in the matter. I hope that the efforts in international negotiations will not simply continue to command the Government's commitment, and that we can have from time to time adequate public reporting of the Government's efforts. We hope that those efforts will achieve some success.
I shall not press the amendment. I am grateful to the Minister for his letter. I understand the difficulties faced by the Department. I hope that we have not only the international effort but some reporting on the nature of those efforts and the results that accrue.

Mr. Monro: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) for the way in which he moved the amendment. He has had a splendid letter from me explaining the position. There are problems, which he highlighted. The developing countries have most of the wildlife that comes into trade and they have the problem.
There is considerable pressure to develop the land where wildlife still survives. Unless ways can be found for the wildlife to be a source of revenue, it will be doomed. Wildlife reserves need protection, and the protectors must be paid. It has been a recognised way of paying them to allow controlled exploitation. The Washington convention is an important supporter of controlled exploitation. Farming, ranching, management, quotas and controlled culls all have a place. The farming and ranching criteria to which the amendment refers are related solely to species that are already considered to be in danger of extinction and to circumstances in which it is recognised that their best hope for survival is for man to derive an economic return from protecting them.
The United Kingdom has taken and will continue to take an active part in encouraging better management and control, but it would be wrong for us to cut off the means whereby that management and control can be justified in poor countries that are rich only in their wildlife. It is far better to continue the reinforcement of enlightened management and exploitation in line with world conservation strategy so that man anti wildlife can co-exist to their mutual benefit.
The amendment would stop a high proportion of United Kingdom trade in wildlife from less developed countries. That would be a retrograde step, which we could not accept. I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind what I have said and to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. We shall return to the amendment frequently from time to time, possibly in questions or in correspondence, until a satisfactory solution is reached.

Mr. Hardy: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 34, in schedule 10, page 73, line 18, after 'Where', insert
'in the case of a live animal or plant of any kind which is condemned or deemed to be condemned as forfeited'.

No. 35, in page 73, line 19, leave out from 'to' to 'those' in line 21 and insert—


'(a) its return to the wild; or
(b) its being kept at premises (whether within or outside the United Kingdom) which are suitable for the keeping of animals or plants of that kind,'.

No. 36, in line 25, leave out from 'seizure' to end of line 26.

No. 37, in page 74, line 20, leave out from 'animal' to second 'of' in line 21.

38, in line 22, at end insert
'or an egg or other immature stage of such an animal'.

39, in page 76, line 12, at end insert—
'Saguinus geoffroyi—'s tamarin'.

No. 40, in line 23, at end insert—
'Cercopithecus Diana—Diana monkey'.

No. 41, in line 31, at end insert—
'Papio leucophaeus (otherwise known as Mandrillus leucophaeus)—Drill
Papio sphinx (otherwise known as Mandrillus sphinx)—Mandrill'.

No. 42, in page 77, line 17, at end insert—
'Physeter catodon (otherwise known as Physeter macrocephalus>—Sperm whale'.

No. 43, in page 79, leave out line 35.

No. 44, in line 46, at end insert—'Rheas' .

No. 45, in line 47, at end insert—Tinamous'

No. 46, in line 48, at end insert—
'Penguins"Spheniscus humboldti—Humboldt penguin'

No. 47, in page 81, line 4, at end insert—
'Penelope albipennis—White-winged guan'.

No. 146, in line 47, at end insert—
'Amazona arausiaca—Red-necked parrot (otherwise known as Red-necked amazon)
Amazona barbadensis—Yellow-shouldered parrot (otherwise known as Yellow-shouldered amazon)
Amazona brasiliensis—Red-tailed parrot (otherwise known as Red-tailed amazon)'

No. 49, in page 82, line 31, at end insert—
'Cyclopsita diophthalma coxeni (otherwise known as Opopsitta diophthalma coxeni) —Coxens fig parrot'.

No. 50, in line 50, at end insert—
'Rhynchopsitta ten-isi-Maroon-fronted parrot'.

No. 51, in page 84, line 10, at end insert—
'Crocodylus acutus—American crocodile'.

No. 52, in line 33, at end insert—


'Iguanas
Brachylophus—Fijian iguanas
Cyclura—Caribbean rock iguanas
Sauromalus varius—San Esteban Island chuckwalla'.

No. 53, in page 85, leave out lines 38 to 46 and insert—
'Cheloniidae-Sea turtles'.

No. 54, in page 87, line 35, at end insert—
'Apocynaceae—Pachypodium namaquanum'.

No. 55, in line 37, at end insert—
'Cactaceae—Ariocarpus agavoides, Ariocarpus scapharostrus, Aztekium ritteri, Echinocereus lindsayi, Obregonia denegrii, Pelecyphora aselliformis, Pelecyphora strobiliformis'.

No. 56, in page 88, line 14, at end insert—
'Nepenthaceae—Nepenthes rajah'.

No. 57, in line 30, at end insert—
'Sarraceniaceae—Sarracenia alabamensis alabamensis, Sarracenia jonesii, Sarracenia oreophila'. — [Mr. Monro.]

Clause 16

POWER TO GRANT LICENCES

Amendment made: No. 176, in page 16, line 24, after 'livestock', insert 'foodstuffs for livestock'.—[Mr. Monro.]

Mr. Denis Howell: I beg to move amendment No. 290, in page 17, line 9, after 'specify', insert 'each person so authorised,'.
I hope that it will not come as too much of a shock to the Minister to be told that the European Parliament has recently made it clear that clause 16 is not lawful in accordance with European law.
We wanted a discussion on the words "each person so authorised". However, I shall confine myself to drawing attention to the Official Journal of the European Parliament, which has recently come to hand.
In written question No. 1877 Mr. Christopher Jackson asked, on the subject of the protection of wild birds:
Does the Commission consider that the proposed UK legislation governing the system of licensing for the killing of certain species of wild birds, contained in the Wildlife and Countryside Bill, complied with the requirements laid down in the Council Directive … on the protection of wild birds'?
An answer was given, that
The United Kingdom authorities have forwarded to the Commission the Wildlife and Countryside Bill as amended after debate in the House of Lords and the licensing provisions mentioned by the Honourable Member have been slightly changed.
Article 9 of Directive … allows derogations from the general provisions of the Directive where no other satisfactory solution is possible. In implementation of Article 9 the United Kingdom Bill provides, in clause 16, for a system of licences. In the Commission's opinion, clause 16 is wider than the Directive permits. Its reasons are as follows:

(1) No provision is made for other satisfactory solutions being sought;
(2) Certain of the purposes for which licences may be granted under the Bill would not seem to be permitted by Article 9 of the Directive and in particular:

— the protection of any collection of wild birds;
— falcony;
— the provision of food for human consumption;
— public exhibition or competition;
— taxidermy;
— photography.


The Commission would, however, underline that in specific cases some of these activities may be permitted".
I could quote the rest of that answer, but I shall not.
It seems that the Commission is at odds with the Government on the question whether clause 16 is within the terms of the directive. The Commission feels grave doubts about the matter. Having raised the point, I shall leave it to the Minister—if he cannot satisfy us this evening, as I did not give notice that I would raise this important point—to come back to us, correspond with us and perhaps seek to deal with the matter in another place or in another way.

Mr. Monro: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Birmingham Small Heath (Mr. Howell) for the way in which he put his point. We are aware that there are different interpretations of all sorts of legislation.
In dealing with clause 16 it will help if I speak about the principle behind our licensing proposals, how we see them working, and the relationship with the birds directive. From its inception, we have seen clause 16, so far as it relates to birds, as needing to be read with article 9 of the EEC directive on the conservation of wild birds. So far as it relates to animals and plants, it should be read in conjunction with article 9 of the Berne convention on the conservation of wildlife and habitats. While the wording of the clause stands in its own right, we have always regarded the clause as the United Kingdom's legal implementation of the requirements for strict control contained in article 9 of the directive and of the convention, while its administration would be governed by the conditions that have to be met in those articles to justify derogation.
There have been suggestions, mentioned by the right hon. Member, that the Bill does not conform with the requirements of the directive. It might be helpful to explain the relationship between directives and domestic legislation. Article 5 of the Treaty of Rome says that
a directive shall be binding as to the result to be achieved"—
that is the crux—
upon each member state to which it is addressed, but shall leave to the National Authorities the choice of form and methods".
Provided that the statutory powers are sufficient, the use of those powers is the test. The Bill has been framed to make the administration flexible and effecive. I ask hon. Members to look at clause 16 afresh in the light of that explanation. We have to report annually to the Commission on derogations under article 9. Those reports will be published.
2.30 am
The Government recognise that they have a duty in their administration of the Bill, in the spirit and the letter of the directive, to ensure that relaxations of the general protection of the birds should be the minimum needed to prevent severe harm to agriculture or other legitimate interests affected by birds. Wherever the conservation status of a species is other than secure there should be a presumption that licences will be given sparingly, and only where practical—and "practical" must here take due note of cost—alternatives have been considered and in some cases where they are already in use.

Mr. Hardy: I agree with what the Minister says, but it seems to conflict to some extent with the Department's document issued on 28 August 1980, which gave examples of licensing and referred to the brent goose, suggesting that a licence could be limited to occupiers of agricultural land in Essex, Hampshire, Kent, Norfolk, Suffolk and East and West Sussex, which covers virtually the entire range in Britain of the dark-bellied brent goose. Another example was that of the cormorant, in respect of which it was suggested that a general licence covering Cumbria and all of Scotland could be available. Has the Department's policy changed since those extremely extensive areas were mentioned?

Mr. Monro: Partly because of the interpretation of the right hon. Member for Small Heath of the European attitude, we should perhaps discuss where we stand on the matter.
We set out in the consultation document where we thought we stood in 1980 and originally in 1979 when it was drafted, but matters evolve, as they have throughout the passage of the Bill. However, what I have said shows that we feel that we are clearly within our agreements with Europe, although we shall consider carefully what the right hon. Gentleman said. If further steps need to be taken, we shall take them.

Mr. Denis Howell: Having had that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made:

No. 58, in page 17, line 12, at beginning insert 'subject to subsection (5)(d)'.

No. 59, in page 17, line 31, after '(1)', insert 'either'.

No. 60, in page 17, line 38, after 'after', insert 'such'.—[Mr. King.]

Mr. Denis Howell: I beg to move amendment No. 291, in page 18, line 7, leave out 'from time to time' and insert 'regularly'.
I hope that these matters can be dealt with regularly, and not from time to time, and that the Government will accept this small amendment.

Mr. Monro: There may be an interesting distinction between "from time to time" and "regularly", just as there is between "may" and "shall". However, the advice that I have is that there would be no point in making the change. It is entirely a matter of opinion whether "from time to time" is more frequent than "regularly". It probably is. "Regularly" may mean once every five years, and I do not believe that that is what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. "From time to time" may mean more frequent than "regularly", so I shall leave it at that.

Mr. Howell: If I had time, I should pursue the matter—regularly. However, as I do not, I shall come back to it at another time.
Having said that, to allow further time for consideration, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 21

PENALTIES, FORFEITURES ETC.

Amendments made:

No. 62, in page 20, line 19, leave out 'under this Part' and insert
'to which subsection (1), (2) or (3) applies'.

No. 63, in page 20, line 21, leave out
'subsection (1), (2) or (3)'
and insert 'that subsection'.—[Mr. King.]

Clause 24

FUNCTIONS OF NATURE CONSERVANCY COUNCIL

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move amendment No. 231, in page 23, line 2, at end insert
'(5) The Council shall produce an annual report, to be presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State, detailing loss and damage to Sites of Special Scientific Interest and National Nature Reserves, major habitat changes, the losses of recognised type of habitat and the causes for these changes and losses.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government amendment No. 71.

Mr. Bennett: This important amendment returns to the subject of sites of special scientific interest. It is important to have a monitoring process, so that we have clear information. I notice that the Government have tabled a later amendment, but it does not go anything like as far as our amendment. I therefore hope that at this stage of the night the Government will accept this small amendment.

Mr. Monro: Law enforcement is a matter for the police, and there is no reason to depart from that principle in this instance. The NCC is willing to co-operate with the law enforcement agencies, and the Bill provides that the council may advise and assist such agencies under clauses 15 and 24.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Minister is answering the wrong amendment.

Mr. Monro: Well, it is good stuff that I am giving the hon. Gentleman, anyhow.
In response to an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy), my right hon. Friend promised an amendment to place a duty on the NCC to include in its annual report details of sites to which orders under section 29 had been applied. Government amendment No. 71 fulfils that undertaking. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is grateful.

Mr. Hardy: I am extremely grateful.

Mr. Denis Howell: I must support my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) in his contention about the amendment. Indeed, it is one that I had noted to vote upon had we reached it at a reasonable hour, although clearly that is not now possible. Nevertheless, it goes to the heart of our approach, which is now the agreed approach on both sides, namely, that everything that is done in connection with the Bill must be based upon publication of all the information and knowledge, so that discussions may take place and public opinion can make itself felt.
For that process to work, in our view the least that should happen is that the council should produce an annual report to Parliament detailing loss and damage to sites of special scientific interest and national nature reserves.
Having regard to the startling evidence presented to us in Committee by Birmingham university, with which we shall be dealing on the next sitting day when we deal with the adequacy or otherwise of our proposals for moorlands and moorland protection, one would have felt that this continuous monitoring process was essential. I cannot for the life of me see why any Minister should resist the proposal that an annual report should be presented to Parliament.
I hope that the Minister will think again about this and perhaps move to meet us on it elsewhere.

Mr. Monro: I should say first to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) and to the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) that I had indeed picked up the wrong piece of paper. That will save reading it on the next amendment. I apologise for that. My remarks about Government amendment No. 71 stand, and I shall move that amendment at the appropriate time.
The hon. Gentleman's amendment, which would impose a duty on the council to inform the Secretary of State of loss and damage to SSSIs and national nature reserves, would be costly and difficult to fulfil. Frequent inspections of all areas would be required and would be exceptionally labour-intensive, at a time when manpower is at a premium.
The NCC publishes an annual report giving all the relevant information that it has, but I am reluctant to impose an onerous new duty. However, I shall discuss the matter with the NCC to see what it could manange to publish which would be helpful to hon. Members and to all those interested in the impact on SSSIs, and to see how best we may give to the public the information that the hon. Gentleman wishes.

Mr. Dalyell: With that undertaking, I hope that something will be forthcoming, because it is a matter of some significance. It raises the whole question of the implementation and effectiveness of what we are discussing. I see that the Minister is nodding, so I hope that something will be done about it.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The final answer that we had from the Minister was much more helpful. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move amendment No. 265, in page 23, line 2, at end insert—
'(5) The Council may appoint such wildlife investigation and enforcement officers as they deem expedient for the purpose of investigating offences committed against the provisions of this Part and of the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976 and of any orders or regulations made under these enactments.'.
I am in some difficulty, because I now know that the Minister will not be very sympathetic; however, I ask him to think again about it. We have introduced a number of new provisions in the Bill, but they will not be very effective unless they can be enforced. The Minister was beginning to say that the responsibility for enforcement lay with the police and with Customs. The truth is that neither of those authorities really has the expertise properly to enforce or investigate offences under this legislation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) tabled new clause 3, which, unfortunately, was not selected. It suggested that the police ought to seek to support somebody in each area who would be trained and have the expertise. It is important that, in one way or another, the whole question of enforcement should be examined.
The Bill goes a little further, because it gives the NCC the duty to provide advice for the enforcement, but we need rather more than that. Many of the people who will commit offences of the sort covered by the Bill are experts in their own area and they will not be easy to catch.
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the RSPCA have tried to fill the gap, but I do not think that it is an area in which we ought to rely on those bodies to carry out the investigation, the monitoring of the offences and the enforcement. We need somebody in the NCC who will do the investigation and the enforcement. If it is left to the police, without the expertise of the NCC, a great deal of the work will go by default.
We know from the Committee proceedings that there are not many prosecutions under the existing legislation. Under the Protection of Birds Act 1954 there are about 150 a year, and nearly half of those are done by the RSPB or the RSPCA. The more complicated ones are done by the voluntary bodies.
This is a simple amendment. It asks for the enforcement to be built into the Bill. Although the beginning of the Minister's brief did not sound very hopeful, I hope that later on in the brief, or in his reconsideration of the matter, he will find it possible to give a positive response to the amendment.

Mr. Hardy: I support the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett). I again draw the Minister's attention to the fact that there will have to be an improvement in the quality and level of enforcement, and that we cannot expect the police automatically to have expertise within their own force. They need a contact point with the Nature Conservancy Council, but the NCC equally needs a contact point with the police forces.
I drew the Committee's attention to the arrangements in other countries. In Canada, for example, every police force has an officer who is appointed to take over the responsibility in this field. It would reassure the voluntary

bodies, which have borne an enormous and costly responsibility in this matter without an adequate public involvement, if there were some evidence that we were taking our legislation seriously. We shall not be taking it seriously until police forces and the NCC are advised to adopt structures that allow mutual co-operation.
I am sorry that my new clause was not selected, because it would have given me an opportunity to suggest that the Home Office should advise each chief constable in England and Wales—there is less of a problem in Scotland—to appoint an officer with responsibility for contacts with voluntary bodies and the NCC. The Bill is a first-class opportunity for that desperately needed innovation.

Mr. Monro: Much closer co-operation on conservation matters has developed between Departments in the past few years. We have had to work together on the Bill, and that will be translated into work with the police, the NCC and other bodies. I understand that some police forces are contemplating appointing liaison officers, and lecturers at the Tulliallan college deal with this type of legislation on their courses.
The police are becoming far more involved in, and understanding of, the problems that they have a duty to assist in policing. It is not easy. Much legislation on conservation has to be taken on trust. We cannot legislate for everything or have police present all the time. But I know that when the police are aware of breaches of the law on such matters as poaching and sheep worrying they do their level best to deal with the problem. I am sure that they will take note of what we have said during the Bill's proceedings, namely, that co-operation between all bodies is vital if we are to have the high standards of enforcement that we are determined to achieve.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 26

REGULATIONS, ORDERS, NOTICES ETC.

Amendments made: No. 64, in page 23, leave out lines 23 to 26.

No. 65, in page 23, line 32 after 'order', insert—
'(bb) except in the case of an order under section 22(3), shall consult with whichever one of the advisory bodies he considers is best able to advise him as to whether the order should be made;'.—[Mr. Monro]

Clause 27

INTERPRETATION OF PART I

Mr. Monro: I beg to move amendment No. 66, in page 24, line 18, after 'undertakers', insert
'a district board for a fishery district within the meaning or the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1862'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government amendment No. 177.

Mr. Monro: The amendment simply corrects an omission in the definition of authorised person. District salmon fisheries boards are constituted under the 1826 Act and are not local fisheries committees constituted under the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966.
Amendment No. 177 meets a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay) about fish fanning. It makes it clear that fish farming comes under paragraph (a) for food and under paragraph (c) for breeding fish for putting in rivers to improve the fishing stock.

Mr. Dalyell: I should like to thank the Minister for that clear explanation.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 177, in page 24, line 38, at end insert—
'"livestock" includes any animal which is kept—

(a) for the provision of food, wool, skins or fur;
(b) for the purpose of its use in the carrying on of any agricultural activity; or
(c) for the provision of improvement of shooting or fishing;'.

No. 67, in page 25, line 35, leave out from beginning to second 'the' in line 36 and insert
'This Part extends to the territorial waters adjacent to Great Britain, and for the purposes of this Part any part of Great Britain which is bounded by territorial waters shall be taken to include'. —[Mr. Monro.]

Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered this day.

CIVIL AVIATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)
That the draft Aviation Security Fund (Third Amendment) Regulations 1981, which were laid before this House on 1() June, be approved.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Question agreed to.

River Torridge (Sewage Treatment)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Brooke.]

Mr. Tony Speller: I wish to bring to the attention of the House the problems associated with the Bideford area sewage treatment and the River Torridge. Bideford lies on the east and west sides of the Torridge, with a population of about 13,000. There are two communities, known as East-the-Water and West-the-Water. Northam, Westward Ho, and Appledore add a further 9,000 to the population. There are massive seasonal fluctuations of population, as the area is extremely popular with holidaymakers and tourists.
The sewage is basically domestic in character. There are three major crude outfalls. Most of the outfalls are exposed at low water and all empty into the River Torridge untreated. The effects of these discharges at Bideford are most noticeable under low tide conditions. The smell at times is really unpleasant, with pollution most apparent along the mud banks at low water springs during a dry spell. There is often an unpleasant slick carried up through the town on the flood and it is by no means uncommon to see faeces in the estuary itself.
The estuary has a high amenity value and is extensively used for recreational pursuits, including sailing, bathing, fishing, water ski-ing and general beach activities. The quality of the estuary water does not reach the standard required by the EEC bathing water directive. The South-West Water Authority admits that it will not do so, even if its present fine screening proposals are implemented instead of the originally planned and much-needed full treatment works.
In 1962, the then Devon River Board decided that matters in the area must be improved. A period of seven years was agreed as a reasonable time to prepare plans for a sewage disposal scheme. A public inquiry was held into a proposed sea outfall but the Secretary of State rejected the proposal then put forward and no decision has been reached on the design of such a scheme.
In 1970, the former Devon River Authority, successor to the Devon River Board, considered that the existing discharge was of a polluted character and, because the pollution problem was no nearer solution, recommended the Devon County Council, as planning authority, to impose a complete embargo on all new development at both Bideford and Northam, pending the implementation of a satisfactory sewerage and sewage disposal scheme. This recommendation was accepted by the county in September 1970 and still applies, except for the construction or modification of single dwellings not on an estate. The policy has been adopted by the South-West Water Authority, which succeeded the Devon River Authority. The saga of successive authorities drags on.
The general policy of recommending the planning authority to restrict development in areas where there are inadequate sewerage or sewage disposal facilities results in numerous applications for private treatment plants. The water authority opposes a proliferation of small, privately run sewage treatment plants because, although the design may be satisfactory, these plants require continual maintenance to achieve desirable standards of effluent and


a multiplicity of small works, sometimes with changing ownership, following completion of development, makes control difficult.
Under the provisions of section 34 of the Public Health Act 1936, owners of property have an absolute right to connect to the main drainage system. This right of connection places a considerable strain on inadequate facilities. The water authority also has the duty to
maintain or restore the wholesomeness of rivers and other inland or coastal waters.
under the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951. The right approach must be to provide adequate and satisfactory sewerage and sewage treatment arrangements before allowing development to take place. Lack of these facilities hinders development and affects the prosperity of the area.
The water authority proposal was originally to provide new pipes and pumps with a modern treatment plant that would produce an acceptable quality effluent. This would improve physically every part of the lower Torridge and the estuary, as well as removing the unpleasantness inevitable with raw sewage in a beautiful river.
The water authority's current proposal is a horror story by comparison. New pipes and pumps, yes, but no treatment at all except—a lovely phrase—fine screening. This means what it says—the taking out of the large lumps while everything else goes into the river. The whole area would probably lose its need-induced priority status, and all this after 18 or 19 years of patient waiting.
The chairman of the water authority has explained its finance problems. He has said that as the water authority had available capital resources of only £4·4 million the only way to spread this limited finance throughout the district would be to implement fine screening at Bideford and Westward Ho, with improvements to various other outfalls into the Torridge. That would be instead of carrying out the full scheme, which would cost £10 million.
In summary, therefore, the water authority, in proposing the use of fine screens only, would be providing a lower quality of effluent disposal than it requires from local developers. That is unsatisfactory to local residents and unfair to local developers. In simple terms, the treatment plant required from any private developer is of a high standard, while the treatment of effluent by the authority itself is not negligible, but nil.
On the advice of various authorities, therefore, development in the Bideford area of Torridgeside has been held back for nearly 20 years. The plan now produced by the water authority does not do the full job of piping and then treating the effluent. It does the piping part, but it only fine screens the sewage before pumping it straight into the Torridge. I do not condemn the water authority for its proposals. On the contrary, it is acting within its limited cash resources and the limitless demands upon that cash as it thinks best. It is much to the credit of the authority and its chairman, Mr. Len Hill, that the authority is prepared to consider amending the scheme at the request of the council. In turn, Torridge district council offers positive suggestions rather than the sterile and negative criticism that arises with disputes between water authorities and district or county councils.
The Torridge district council—a good authority—is supported entirely by Bideford town council in being completely opposed to a second-rate scheme that fails to improve the quality of the sewage discharged into the

Torridge river. From 1964 to 1980 about 2,400 additional dwellings have been erected within the area as a result of existing planning consents. About 1,700 of these properties pass untreated effluent into the Torridge, a river considered in 1962 to be polluted. If a fine screening operation alone is introduced on economy grounds and the priority status requiring further improvement is removed it is unlikely that a full treatment scheme will ever be implemented.
Rather than introduce fine screening alone throughout the district, I should prefer the capital allocation to be invested in full treatment in the Bideford area alone as a first stage. The other areas, where crude sewage discharges either into the Torridge or into the sea direct, could then be phased into later schemes, but could still rank as priority areas. I do not suggest that this half a loaf is satisfactory, but at least it would do part of the job well rather than all of it badly.
The water authority has agreed to defer a decision on whether to implement fine screening, provided some definite conclusion can be reached by October of this year. There is a good hope that agreement can be reached between the various authorities before then.
This is a plot without a villain and—at this moment—without a hero bearing a crock of gold to solve all our problems. Perhaps there is such a hero in the wings. I refer to the excellent and much-respected Member of the European Parliament for Devon, Lord O'Hagan, and perhaps to his Strasbourg geese and their golden eggs. The EEC is an occasional but generous contributor to individual local development projects in Devon when these find favour. Contributions are usually between £250,000 and £500,000.
If we are to receive more cash through the EEC, thanks to the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, how much better to ask for it in one chunk in order to get the infrastructure right—in this case the sewerage of an area—rather than piecemeal for one-off projects over a period of years.
There is a moral point and a commercial point to this. If the area has been blighted for nearly 20 years by pollution problems it cannot be right to slip in a partial job and say that that will do for now, while so much more is demanded from the private developer. The commercial point is simply that in an area of great natural beauty, with the most efficient shipyard in the country at Appledore, and with so much needing to be done, it is pointless not to set people free to build and prosper.
The Government are pledged to help the individual and the small firms who are pledged to help themselves. Bideford, Northam, Westward Ho and Appledore are just such small firms. In North Devon we do not ask for charity. We ask only for our fair share of resources and then to be allowed to get on with the job.

3 am

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw): My hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) has been consistent in his pursuit of this problem. I think that he will expect me to remind the House that he last raised this matter on 12 March 1980 when dealing with this and other matters in connection with water supply, flooding and drainage.
My hon. Friend must now know that the authority was asked to reconsider its proposal to promote the Roadford reservoir and to investigate an alternative site at Higher Horslett, and its reply is under consideration.
On that occasion my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox), who was Under-Secretary at the time, touched on the authority's part scheme to re-sewer parts of Bideford and to treat the sewage by primary settlement only for discharge to the Taw-Torridge estuary. Commissioning of the scheme was not then expected to be completed until 1995. Some progress has been made, in that the authority's corporate plan shows that its latest version of the scheme has been brought forward for execution in the period 1982–87 at a cost of £4·7 million. However, no longer does the authority propose to adopt the process of primary settlement. This is the major factor in the Torridge district council's dislike of the less costly current proposal which the water authority favours. That point was made by my hon. Friend.
As my hon. Friend is aware, the problem is not which scheme should be favoured or implemented, given the restraints on and the allocation of public expenditure which the water authority has to endure. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments about the water authority and about its chairman, Mr. Len Hill, who has been grappling with a considerable inheritance of water problems in both supply and sewerage, which have left the area with one of the highest, if not the highest, domestic rate of charging and yet with some of the most intractable problems. The large influx of summer visitors raises the resident population by about 40 per cent. in a normal year. I sincerely hope that Bideford and district will have a normal summer this year.
Additionally, the authority faces the problem of development embargoes, and my hon. Friend referred to them as a major restraint on the local economy. I understand that 200 out of the 560 parishes are affected by such embargoes at present.
I preface my comments on the specific scheme by agreeing with my hon. Friend that anything that can be done to remove embargoes on development—the major restraint on the local economy—should be done, and any scheme that would result in lifting these embargoes should have a high priority. But, as my hon. Friend knows, development embargoes are in force not only in the Bideford area, but in Appledore, Northam and Westward Ho to the north and west of Bideford. These embargoes exist because of deficiencies inherited by the water authority.
The problems of the area are widespread. Dealing with Bideford alone, the structure plan provides for 73 hectares of residential land and 16 hectares of employment land to be released. If the scheme favoured by the water authority is completed, it will enable some development to proceed at Westward Ho and Northam and some limited building to take place at Appledore and Cleave, where the structure plan identifies the provision of a further 36 hectares of residential land. A tremendous amount is to be gained with a scheme that results in the embargoes being lifted. As my hon. Friend is probably aware, these development embargoes can be lifted on the scheme's inception, once it is approved for the capital programme of the water authority.
The problems at Appledore and Bideford relate to both deficient sewerage and water quality, with crude sewage discharges to the estuary. Likewise, the problems at Northam and Westward Ho are related to crude sewage discharges. At Northam the sewerage is deficient and at Westward Ho there is inadequate sewage treatment. My hon. Friend will appreciate that while all this is unfortunate for a prime holiday area, Bideford is also part of an area that has assisted status as defined by the Department of Industry, so the lifting of the development embargo is clearly of added importance.
Although the current proposals for Bideford fall short of a full treatment scheme, I understand that they form the first stage of such a scheme. Having checked with the water authority today, I can confirm that it remains committed in the longer term to the full scheme. It is, however, its present proposal to carry out enough works to improve sufficiently the effluent of the sewerage system to enable the development embargo to be lifted. This, I stress, is perhaps the most important single factor, and it is the initial aim of the water authority to do that—to lift the embargo and to enable the development of residential and industrial land to proceed.
Now we come to the initial question of what method is to be preferred. Alternatives for the initial stage necessary to remove the embargoes have been considered by the water authority, and a difference of opinion appears to exist between the authority and Torridge district council as to which should be adopted. The water authority favours the less expensive scheme of passing the sewage from Bideford East and West through fine screens sited locally and completing sufficient works to raise the embargoes at Appledore, Bideford, Northam and Westward Ho, whereas the district council favours a more expensive scheme, which includes primary treatment of sewage from Bideford East and West after pumping into a new site at Little America.
My hon. Friend was suggesting that the proposal by the water authority to use fine screens was somewhat horrific. Perhaps I can give him some further information. I have spoken to the authority about the problem. I have, for example, asked whether fine screening is a well-tried system. It is certainly true that in the screening to which the water authority is committed it is proposing to screen the solids from the system at a very fine mesh—at 1·5 to 2·5 mm. That system has been tested out for about three months at the authority's works, and it is satisfied that such a fine screening system can be implemented.
My hon. Friend might care to know that there are several other resorts—Blackpool, Bognor and Littlehampton, to name but three—that rely upon a fine screening process, and that they have a fine screen as large in mesh as 5 mm. So I put two points to my hon. Friend in defence of what the water authority seeks to do.
First, it has a process that has been used by other resorts that have major amenities in terms of bathing waters; secondly, it is introducing after test a process a much finer grain of screen than that applied elsewhere. It is not surprising, therefore, that if this fine screening is installed the problems of the suspended solids in the waters of the Torridge will be reduced by about one third, which will be a major improvement over the present state of affairs.
I take issue with my hon. Friend's suggestion that what is being discussed here is horrific. I accept that it is not the proposal that the Torridge district council favours and is not a complete proposal as far as sewage treatment goes,


but it does offer major relief for the immediate problem at a scale of fineness that will be the best that can be produced in this country and, I suggest, with a reduction in the solids in effluent that will be substantial.
I also suggest to my hon. Friend that it would, of course, mean the lifting of the embargo in Bideford and other areas, and that factor must be heavily considered. I admit that the alternative scheme offered by Torridge district council would also lift embargoes, but, I suspect, for a rather smaller area than that preferred by the water authority.
There is, of course, a difference in the capital considerations. The district council's proposals would cost about £5,580,000, whereas that favoured by the water authority is estimated to cost £4,850,000. So the scheme favoured by the district council exceeds the cost of that available by about £730,000. Sewerage works, pumping and fine screening plant at Westward Ho and Northam, and extensions to existing outflows at Appledore and Cleave, would cost a further £1·4 million, and these additional works are included in the scheme favoured by the authority, but are not included in the scheme favoured by the Torridge district council.
I suggest, therefore, that the moneys that the water authority proposes to spend on the fine screening scheme would not only affect a wider proportion of his constituency as far as the development embargoes go, and allow the further development of the fuller treatment works, but could produce as adequate a reduction over a wider area as any other scheme.
Then there is the question of additional assistance. My hon. Friend was looking for the magic wand of the regional development fund. That fund has to operate when the scheme has been commenced, and it has to be produced within the same financial year. The ERDF can be used to assist in providing basic services for industrial areas. Some schemes in my hon. Friend's area, notably re-sewering Camborne and Redruth, the water supply scheme in Plymouth, Colliford reservoir and the trunk main into Cornwall, all received ERDF aid. Moreover, the Commission recently approved grant aid for the Caradon reservoir.
However, assistance from the ERDF is conditional upon application being made in respect of expenditure that will take place in the current EEC financial year, extending from 31 December to 1 January of the next year. Expenditure incurred more than six months previously

cannot be included in the application. So, although it remains a possibility, that possibility is not particularly close.
However, there is another possibility, namely schemes involving the 1972 Local Employment Act grants. The Local Employment Act grant is available and payable on that portion of the water services project which is attributable to the needs of new or expanded industry If the water authority considers that its scheme would be eligible for that grant—and bearing in mind the lifting of embargoes on industrial development, it would appear to me that it might be eligible—it could submit an application for consideration in the usual way. However, the scale of grant may not be great—about 30 per cent. for the industrial component—but it could be a source of improvement to the financing of the project.
My hon. Friend raised the matter of bathing water quality. While it may be true that the quality of the estuary bathing water may not equate to the standard that is required by the EEC bathing water directive—I am not sure whether that directive applies to the luscious waters of the Torridge estuary—the directive does not equate to public health standards. So, should visitors wish to take the plunge, it would be wrong to assume that there was a health risk in the estuary at present.
Although there is a difference of view between the two schemes, and although I welcome the possibility that both the council and the water authority might reach agreement by discussion, the scheme for fine screening appears to offer a major reduction in the problem at a modest cost, and offers a wider relief from the development embargoes in the area concerned. I cannot claim that there will he much chance of an EDRF grant, but that is a matter for the authority to consider. An employment grant assistance may be available at a lower level for the industrial component in the scheme.
Whatever else may be said, I assure my hon. Friend that the water authority will still be committed to a wider-scale scheme to complete the whole operation, as and when funds are available. In the meantime, I suggest that the scheme that it proposes has considerable merit, and I hope that at long last something positive will be done to assist his constituency,

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Three o'clock am.